Quantcast

Wednesday, July 23, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 54 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Obama won't send troops back to Iraq

By Julie Pace & Lolita C. Baldor

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 02:57 p.m. HST, Jun 13, 2014


WASHINGTON » President Barack Obama vowed Friday that the United States would not be "dragged back" into military action in Iraq as long as leaders in Baghdad refuse to reform a political system that has left the county vulnerable to a fast-moving Islamic insurgency.

The president ruled out the possibility of putting American troops on the ground in Iraq, but said he was considering a range of other options drawn up by the Pentagon. Administration officials said those include strikes using drones or manned aircrafts, as well as boosts in surveillance and intelligence gathering, including satellite coverage and other monitoring efforts.

The U.S., which routinely has an array of ships in the region, has the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush and an accompanying Navy cruiser in the northern Arabian Sea, while two Navy destroyers from the Bush strike group have been operating in the Persian Gulf. The ships carry Tomahawk missiles, which could reach Iraq, and the Bush is carrying fighter jets that could also easily get to Iraq.

Still, the president appeared to leave himself a clear off-ramp by making military action contingent on a "serious and sincere effort by Iraq's leaders to set aside sectarian differences" between the nation's Sunnis and Shiites.

"We can't do it for them," he said. "And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won't succeed."

U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Baghdad is unlikely to fall, according to officials who were briefed on the matter but could not be quoted by name because the briefings were classified. Iraq's Shiite soldiers who deserted en masse because they were unwilling to fight and die for Sunni towns such as Tikrit are much more likely to fight for Baghdad and its Shiite-dominated national government, U.S. intelligence officials believe. U.S. agencies also assess that the units around Baghdad are marginally better.

Officials said they estimate there are several thousand insurgents but well short of 10,000.

The security situation in Iraq rapidly deteriorated this week as the al-Qaida-inspired group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant quickly overran Iraq's second-largest city of Mosul, Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit and smaller communities, as well as military and police bases — often meeting little resistance from state security forces. The militants have vowed to press on to Baghdad.

The rebellion has emerged as the biggest threat to Iraq's stability since the U.S. withdrew its military in late 2011 after more than eight years of war. Obama said the militants also pose a threat to U.S. national security interests, which could ultimately be used as a justification for a unilateral American strike.

Over the past several days, the United States has urged Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to make his government more inclusive and avoid further alienating Iraqi Sunnis who are eyeing the insurgency as an alternative to supporting the Shiite leadership in Baghdad. That message was delivered to al-Maliki in a phone call from Vice President Joe Biden and also personally by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk, who has years-long ties to the prime minister and is in Iraq this week to help negotiate a solution

Obama suggested it could take several days to gather the intelligence necessary to make a final decision on the U.S. response to the situation. Following his statement, Obama departed on a four-day trip to North Dakota and California. Officials said he had no plans to cut it short.

For Obama, launching military strikes in Iraq would pull the U.S. back into a conflict he declared over more than two years ago. The president has since tried to keep the U.S. out of further conflicts, including in Syria, where a civil war is helping fuel the insurgency in neighboring Iraq.

Secretary of State John Kerry, traveling in London, said a key difference between striking Syria and taking action in Iraq was the fact that Baghdad was specifically asking Washington for help.

"Under international law, it is clear that when a legitimate nation makes a request for help there is a legal basis for involvement in ways that are different," Kerry said.

Iraqi leaders have been pleading with the U.S. for additional help to combat the insurgency for more than a year. While the U.S. has sold Iraq military equipment, the Obama administration has resisted drone strikes.

Congressional Republicans accused Obama of ignoring repeated warnings about the worsening conditions on the ground.

"It's long past time for the president to lay out a plan for how we can reverse the momentum and spread of terrorism in Iraq and a region that is critical to U.S. national interests," said House Speaker John Boehner.

Obama met with his national security team Friday morning to discuss the broad range of options being pulled together by the Pentagon.

Airstrikes and other counterterrorism operations, in conjunction with the Iraqi government or without its approval, are the most aggressive options under consideration. Any strikes would have to be precise and targeted at pockets of the insurgency. Unlike the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. would probably avoid strikes at Iraqi infrastructure, government facilities or its military.

The U.S. could also position small teams of military troops and aircraft close by in case they are needed to evacuate the thousands of Americans still working in Iraq or to provide security if required. While U.S. contractors working at an air base in northern Iraq have been relocated, there were no immediate plans to evacuate the American Embassy in Baghdad.

U.S. drone surveillance flights over Iraq have been intermittent, but beginning Thursday they increased in number, frequency and duration, a U.S. official said. The drones are unarmed and had been concentrating largely on northern and western Iraq.

AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian in Washington and AP National Security Writer Lara Jakes in London contributed to this report.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 54 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(54)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
livinginhawaii wrote:
I'm somewhat confused as to why Barry is asking for options. Everyone knew that when we pulled out the terrorists would go back in. I dare say that countless options were drafted and previously sent to him. Our government is known for drafting endless contingencies - they even went as far as to draft one for a zombie apocalypse...
on June 13,2014 | 06:55AM
hanalei395 wrote:
There was NO option by that idiot, GW Bush, who desperately wanted to start a war in Iraq. He even kicked out the UN weapons inspectors, in Iraq looking for WMD, so he could start his ill-fated war.
on June 13,2014 | 07:11AM
hanalei395 wrote:
There was NO option by that idi0t, GW Bush, who desperately wanted to start a war in Iraq. He even kicked out the UN weapons inspectors, in Iraq looking for WMD, so he could start his ill-fated war.
on June 13,2014 | 07:15AM
Nalukai wrote:
When I was child, me and my two brothers would get into a fight and when caught by my parents, one of us would always point a finger and say "he started it", well, we all got dirty lickens. It amazes me how some people still point a finger at Bush, (and yes I did and do not agree with the Iraq war), while the rest of the world disengrates. To quote a famous politician, "what difference does it make ?". Well, I live in the 'NOW', and now our president is Obama. He is a weak and so far failed leader. If Obama doesn't rise to the occasion, we all going 'get lickens' !
on June 13,2014 | 08:27PM
hanalei395 wrote:
It was a response to a subject about OPTIONS. There was NO OPTION by Bush. His "option" was a war he wanted, a war in Iraq. ... And the U.S. got more than just "lickens". Over 4,500 U.S. troops ... DEAD.....FOR NOTHING.
on June 13,2014 | 08:48PM
Nalukai wrote:
Crying about the past does not forbade well for the future, regardless of who is at fault...Boohoo !
on June 13,2014 | 09:07PM
hanalei395 wrote:
"Boohoo" is right. Your ONLY option in the past ...you...getting lickens. Boohoo, ... too bad for you.
on June 13,2014 | 09:46PM
HD36 wrote:
The same terrorists in Iraq are the Freedom Fighters we support in Syria. Jabhal-Nusra Front, Al-Shams (ISIS) and Levant (Islamic State of Iraq) are offshoots of Al Qaeda with over 100,000 fighters in Syria, half of which are hardline Jihadist fragmented into 1000 bands. Congress secretly approved US weapons flow to the Syrian Rebels in a classified section of defense appropriation. (Reuters, 1-27-14) > We've also sent them advanced anti tank missiles and sophisticated armor piercing systems. (4-19-14 , Wall St. Journal) ISIS /ISIL -took control of Mosul, then Tirkit and have freed about 3000 prisoners from three facilities. (Al Jazeera.com) > Reminiscent of the CIA arming Bin Laden when he fought Russia and throwing money at the Shaw of Iran only to have him overthrown by the people.
on June 13,2014 | 07:36AM
Maipono wrote:
The problem is the lack of vision by our president and the poor choices that he has made for America over and over again for the last 5 years. He was told that Iraq would disintegrate into civil war if our American presence was halted, yet he continued on. He could have had contingency plans formulated in case of this eventuality, but he chose to ignore it, and as a result, we have yet another crisis that Obama didn't know about. You can't blame Bush, it's all Obama in this one.
on June 13,2014 | 08:18AM
HD36 wrote:
True, but Iran is sending in troops to fight the rebels. Not because they like the US, but to secure the Shia led Iraq government so they have a base to aid their Shia led ally in Syria. The Sunni led Rebels, backed by Sunni led Saudi Arabia and the United States when they were fighting in Syria, threaten Iran more than the US. It's a religious war that's been going on for centuries ever since Mohammed died from eating poisoned lamb and factions fought over hierarchy.
on June 13,2014 | 08:35AM
hanalei395 wrote:
"Iraq would disintergrate into civil war if our American presence was halted". ....... Which means, Iran will now have to make a "presence" in Iraq. ...... From the start of the Iraq war, until the last U.S. troops that left, the U.S. did Iran a big favor. Especially, when the U.S. got rid of Iran's most hated enemy, Saddam Hussein.
on June 13,2014 | 09:35AM
Maipono wrote:
IRT Hanalei, if you think this out like Obama should have, he should have used his "superior" diplomatic skills to make sure the Maliki Administration didn't purge Sunni's from the military and government, before he started withdrawal. Instead, he irresponsibly allowed them to do as they pleased and pulled out, and that is why Iran has had a cakewalk into Iraq. It helped that the American voters re-elected a naive, weak "leader" back into office again.
on June 13,2014 | 10:24AM
hanalei395 wrote:
"American voters re-elected a naive, weak "leader" back into office again", in 2004, the one who started this whole Iraq mess in the first place. (That "leader" in 2004, was also an idi0t).
on June 13,2014 | 10:44AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
hanalei395-Bill Clinton signed the resolution to go after Saddam Hussein not GW Bush. But it worked. Low voter information types are constantly being manipulated by the state run media of "Bush lied people died mantra."
on June 13,2014 | 02:20PM
hanalei395 wrote:
And now, blame the Bush/Iraq war on Clinton. A war started by an idi0t who had to KICK the UN weapons inspectors, who were looking for WMD, OUT OF IRAQ. Other Obama haters were blaming Obama for the Iraq war. This one is blaming Clinton.
on June 13,2014 | 03:10PM
HD36 wrote:
We could go all the way back to Jimmy Carter who installed the puppet Shaw of Iran. When he was overthrown, we sent weapons to Saddam to counterbalance the two in a 10 year war.
on June 13,2014 | 04:49PM
hanalei395 wrote:
"We"? No, YOU go back. And stay there. The "Shaw"(sic) of Iran was returned to power in 1953. That would be during Eisenhower's time. (Thanks to the CIA and Eisenhower).
on June 13,2014 | 05:30PM
HD36 wrote:
He was ousted under Carter's presidency in 1979 when he fled to Egypt. Carter toasted him in Iran in 1977 and didn't get the hostages released.
on June 13,2014 | 06:21PM
Nalukai wrote:
Sounds like how kittle children argue and point a finger and say "well, he started it'...O.K. Bush is an idiot and he started it. But, as far as I know, we don't live in the past....now Obama wanted to be President and he accepted the consequences when he pledged the oath. So what, what is Obama gonna do now ? You can't keep pointing a finger and expect results as the world disengrates in front of your face. Obama is a poor leader and as they say " eventually people get the government they deserve" !
on June 13,2014 | 07:36PM
Winston wrote:
Mr. Obama forfeited the game in the last five minutes of the fourth quarter.
on June 13,2014 | 10:50AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Those "last five minutes" were handed over to the Iranians, ... to play their OWN "game".
on June 13,2014 | 11:12AM
Slow wrote:
Nuke em all. We run the world!
on June 13,2014 | 06:35PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Last I checked Obama didn't lie us into a war that layed the foundation for Iraq's modern day quagmire. Obama didn't raise the specter of mobile biological weapons labs, large stockpiles of chemical weapons, and shopping trips for yellowcake uranium, all of that were lies told by people who wanted to go to war. Obama has been tellin that fool of a prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki that he and his fellow shiites cannot go around treating the Sunnis of Ambar provence like dogs. Of course al Malaki is to busy kissing the hands of his handlers in Iran he did bother to notice that a cadre of combat proven bad guys were coming back from Syria ready to settle some score. BTW why did the Iraqi army break? Because contrary to reports it's just not 800 guys, but all the local Sunni tribes and their Milita on the march. Look the only way Iraq was going to hold together was if Saddam stayed in power. We could have stayed there but what for? My two cents; the Iraqis hated Saddam, we got rid of him and gave the Irais every opportunity to keep their country together. But no, the Shiites wanted to settle some old scores and what we have here is a good old fashion civil war between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, a war that is not our fault and we should stay the heck away from.
on June 13,2014 | 11:19AM
Winston wrote:
There's no proof Bush lied. Two Senate Select Intelligence Committees (one by Democrats) and a town, DC, that leaks like a sieve.

Colin Powell, an honorable man, called the intelligence "mistaken". We and 4 other national intelligence agencies were mistaken. Grab a dictionary and look up the difference between "lie" and "mistake".

Joe Wilson lied about Iraq inquiring about yellow cake. Congressional testimony, under oath, revealed they did make that inquiry. What were they going to do with the stuff? Make cupcakes?

Obama hasn't been telling Maliki anything since he effectively washed his hands of Iraq, US interest be damned.

Maliki is a failure.

Why did the Iraqi army break? Neither of us knows. However, I do know that our precipitous departure when Iraq had practically no military command structure had to be a contributor.

What we don't have is an old fashioned civil war between sects. What we have it the vision of Bin Laden being enacted, an oil rich terror state on the border with Saudi Arabia.

Not our fault? It is our fault, Bush's and now Obama's. SF teams on the ground and immediate airstrikes is what Obama should be doing. Instead, he's "weighing options" meaning: nothing.


on June 13,2014 | 11:36AM
Winston wrote:
There's no proof Bush lied. Two Senate Select Intelligence Committees (one by Democrats) and a town, DC, that leaks like a sieve.

Colin Powell, an honorable man, called the intelligence "mistaken". We and 4 other national intelligence agencies were mistaken. Grab a dictionary and look up the difference between "lie" and "mistake".

Joe Wilson lied about Iraq inquiring about yellow cake. Congressional testimony, under oath, revealed they did make that inquiry. What were they going to do with the stuff? Make cupcakes?

Obama hasn't been telling Maliki anything since he effectively washed his hands of Iraq, US interest be damned.

Maliki is a failure.

Why did the Iraqi army break? Neither of us knows. However, I do know that our precipitous departure when Iraq had practically no military command structure had to be a contributor.

What we don't have is an old fashioned civil war between sects. What we have it the vision of Bin Laden being enacted, an oil rich terror state on the border with Saudi Arabia.

Not our fault? It is our fault, Bush's and now Obama's. SF teams on the ground and immediate airstrikes is what Obama should be doing. Instead, he's "weighing options" meaning: nothing.


on June 13,2014 | 11:37AM
HD36 wrote:
Iran is sending in military troops to aid the Iraq government. The war is drawn between Sunni and Shia. The Iraqi government, which is controlled by Shia, serves as a base to support Syria, another Shia based country against the Sunni Rebels, supported by Saudi Arabia and the US. To think how much lives and money have been wasted assisting a religious war between different factions whose main disagreement is the heir to Mohammed's thrown after he ate a poisoned leg of lamb centuries ago, is mind boggling. Then again, it's all about the money, one way or another.
on June 13,2014 | 08:28AM
Anonymous wrote:
Wasn't one of the main reasons that we pulled out of Iraq was the Iraq government would not indemnify our troops against legal prosecution? Seems to me that the president was trying to protect our troops. Seems like his philosophy is clear that he wants to protect our men and women in uniform. He refuses to put combat troops on the ground without a direct threat to America. As was the case in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and now with this situation in Iraq. Or in the case of Afghanistan to get Bin Laden/AL Queda, who had attacked American on 9/11. I personally support protecting our soldiers and only exposing then to death when our country's or our Allies security is at stake or a humanitarian crises is imminent.
on June 13,2014 | 08:49AM
Winston wrote:
Here's the real truth. Obama was, by all accounts, not interested in keeping troops in Iraq. The negotiation of the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government was useful cover for him to accomplish that withdrawal. Yes, there were problems with the Iraqi government's problem with legal amnesty for US troops. However, from my reading, these could have been handled/mitigated by negotiation and strong presidential involvement.

There was no strong presidential involvement. By the president's failure to act, which I believe was calculated, we left Iraq precipitously.

In effect, the president forfeited the game in the last five minutes of the fourth quarter despite the fact that vital American interest were at stake.

What is that vital American interest? Stability in the oil producing regions of the ME. In this regard, a radical islamist terror state on the border with Saudi Arabia is our worst nightmare. Should fault go to Bush's mistaken invasion? Yes. However, a mistaken war does not alter the continuing existence of vital national/international interests. Instead, Obama ignored those continuing interest and, having done so, has encouraged the nightmare.


on June 13,2014 | 09:59AM
hanalei395 wrote:
"not interested in keeping troops in Iraq" .... And so was the American people.
on June 13,2014 | 10:16AM
Winston wrote:
Doesn't change my point or the fact that doing nothing doesn't constitute a foreign policy that will protect our national interests.
on June 13,2014 | 10:35AM
hanalei395 wrote:
It was either the wishes of the American people .. OR ... your imaginary "point".
on June 13,2014 | 11:21AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Ex military will always insist war is the answer.
on June 13,2014 | 11:50AM
hanalei395 wrote:
Except our two senators, Akaka and Inouye, WW II vets, and one, a Medal of Honor recipient. Both voted "NO" for the authorization of the Iraq war.
on June 13,2014 | 12:18PM
Winston wrote:
A pretty good article on Obama's calculated failure (my opinion) to negotiate a SOFA agreement with Iraq.(http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/11/iraqi_politicians_backed_into.php#)
on June 13,2014 | 10:48AM
pcman wrote:
Obama said he already won the war and so he closed the war in Iraq. So what the heck is happening? Did we win or was he lying? He also said Al Queda was on the run. To where, to Baghdad? What kind of leadership is going on? Oh yeah, leading from behind. That is, day late, dollar short. No boots on the ground? So who would maintain any gains that are made? Didn't Obama learn from taking home the boots on the ground?
on June 13,2014 | 10:25AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
PCman. Let's take care our veterans before we go broke. The system is broken. More boots on the ground means more boots in the VA hospitals. Can you smell this vicious cycle?
on June 13,2014 | 11:58AM
Slow wrote:
Nope,Obama never said we won the war. That was a real man, phoney baloney Bush posing on the carrier. And you actually support putting Americans back in Iraq? You or your son volunteering?
on June 13,2014 | 06:37PM
kainalu wrote:
Enough with trying to Police the world's problems. We've got our own - more than 15,000 Americans lost to violence each-year here in the States. Two-thirds of working-class Americans that can't qualify for a mortgage. And a broken VA system - you know - the system meant to take care of those young Americans you saber rattling chicken-hawks send off to war.
on June 13,2014 | 10:25AM
Winston wrote:
It takes a powerful, willful combination of denial and ignorance to refuse to acknowledge that we live in a globalized, integrated world from which we can not withdraw. The economic jugular vein of the developed world runs through the Middle East. Only a fool would not recognize that and the fact that, if there is a stabilizing power on the planet, right now we are IT, like it or not. Denying that role, as has Obama, will create chaos and EVERYONE will suffer because of it.
on June 13,2014 | 10:40AM
Nevadan wrote:
Biden and Obama just warned al-Maliki to open the Iraqi government to the Sunnis. Too little, too late. These two guys were napping all these years.
on June 13,2014 | 10:32AM
KWAY wrote:
Thank you Mr. President. Our troops, our nation, nor you should have to suffer any longer for the Bush adminstration's war crimes, shameless oil driven agenda, and sweetheart deals with US defense contractors (pigs). The Iraqi's need to man up on their own, we did nuff for them already.
on June 13,2014 | 10:53AM
Winston wrote:
There's no proof Bush lied. Two Senate Select Intelligence Committees (one by Democrats) and a town, DC, that leaks like a sieve.

Colin Powell, an honorable man, called the intelligence "mistaken". We and 4 other national intelligence agencies were mistaken. Grab a dictionary and look up the difference between "lie" and "mistake".

Joe Wilson misled the public about Iraq inquiring about yellow cake. Congressional testimony, under oath, revealed they did make that inquiry. What were they going to do with the stuff? Make cupcakes?

Obama hasn't been telling Maliki anything since he effectively washed his hands of Iraq, US interest be d@mned.

Maliki is a failure.

Why did the Iraqi army break? Neither of us knows. However, I do know that our precipitous departure when Iraq had practically no military command structure had to be a contributor.

What we don't have is an old fashioned civil war between sects. What we have it the vision of Bin Laden being enacted, an oil rich terror state on the border with Saudi Arabia.

Not our fault? It is our fault, Bush's and now Obama's. SF teams on the ground and immediate airstrikes is what Obama should be doing. Instead, he's "weighing options" meaning: nothing.


on June 13,2014 | 11:39AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Colin Powell got punked by Bush,Cheney and Rummy.
on June 13,2014 | 11:53AM
Winston wrote:
Proof. Facts. Where are they?
on June 13,2014 | 12:56PM
hanalei395 wrote:
"There's no proof Bush lied". .......Proof or no proof ... BOTTOM LINE: .... Bush KICKED OUT the UN weapons inspectors, in Iraq, looking for WMD, so he can start his unnecessary, ill-fated Iraq war he desperately wanted. A war on a people WHO DID NOTHING to the U.S.
on June 13,2014 | 11:54AM
primowarrior wrote:
This is a war that we should never have started, and now, we're stuck with this mess. With the different factions fighting each other, I hate to say it, but maybe Saddam had it right in ruling them with an iron fist.
on June 13,2014 | 12:26PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Saddam did rule with an iron fist. He kept al-Qaeda out of Iraq. He kept Islamic fundamentalists from turning secular Iraq into an Islamic state. An Islamic state with the Sharia law. Saddam had women and Christians in his cabinet. His Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, was a Catholic. Iraqi Christians celebrated Christmas and Easter. That lasted, until an idi0t, on March 19, 2003 ......"Shock and Awe".
on June 13,2014 | 12:51PM
entrkn wrote:
Idealy, we would send a "new" volunteer militia composed of all the pretend warriors with their own assault weapons and led by George W Bush, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Wayne LaPierre, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell, and trust them to "take care of it"... But realistically, the Shia dominated government of Iraq is so corrupt and crooked that they have to go and be replaced by competent, honest, fair, and just governance before any outside help from anyone would have a prayer of any success.
on June 13,2014 | 12:41PM
CEI wrote:
Agreed it probably was not such a good idea for Bush to go into Iraq but a lot of politicians, many of them democrats included voted to use force against Iraq back in 2002. Now back to present time. You have a weak, incompetent, uninterested president in office who is surrounded by political hacks who have very little real world experience. I think Little Barry (Tooter Turtle) may finally be ready for his "Help me Mr. Wizard" moment as it is abundantly clear he has no idea what he is doing.
on June 13,2014 | 01:36PM
hanalei395 wrote:
And now, blame the Bush/Iraq war on Clinton. A war started by an idi0t, who had to KICK the UN weapons inspectors, who were looking for WMD, OUT OF IRAQ, so he could start his war. Obama haters were blaming Obama for the Iraq war. This one is blaming Clinton.
on June 13,2014 | 02:46PM
hanalei395 wrote:
"This one" .... refers to thepartyfirst.
on June 13,2014 | 03:11PM
HD36 wrote:
The revolving door between business and government has been going on for decades regardless of which party has been in power. SAIC , Science applications International Corp, a major intelligence, military, aerospace, engineering and systems contractor for homeland security were instrumental in pressing the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and war was the only way to get rid of them. As an example of the revolving door: Robert M. Gates , Secretary of Defense at the time, was a former member of SAIC's board of directors. William B. Black Jr. former NSA retired in 1997, worked for SAIC, then returned again in 2000. He managed the Trailblazer contract that was abandoned after $1 billion was wasted. George HW Bush- Carlyle Group : Dick Cheney-Halliburton : Robert McNamara , Secretary of Defense and World Bank President.
on June 13,2014 | 06:11PM
entrkn wrote:
Send them a greeting card:"Thinking of you..."
on June 13,2014 | 06:31PM
entrkn wrote:
Send them a get well card...
on June 13,2014 | 06:55PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News