Tag: iraq

Democrat Senator Chris Coons Offers an Insane Reason to Justify Spending Millions of Taxpayer Dollars on Sesame Street in IRAQ Via USAID

One elected Democrat official decided to step up and defend an item that any person with common sense would deem absolutely asinine.

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) appeared on CNN on Saturday and was asked about the Trump Administration’s efforts to close down USAID.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, USAID has been in the crosshairs for the past week, given the billions of dollars of waste exposed by DOGE. Some of the examples exposed have been absolutely stunning.

In one instance, the agency funneled $5 billion in 2014 to ignite riots in Ukraine, according to RFK Jr.

While it would be otherwise expected for a Democrat to smear Trump as heartless and cruel regarding his stance on getting rid of government waste, Coons decided to embarrass himself for an different reason on national television.

During their discussion, host Michael Smerconish asked the Delaware senator if he could justify spending $20 million of taxpayer money on Sesame Street in Iraq.

“Is funding Sesame Street (in Iraq) a judicious use of soft power?” Smerconish asked.

Instead avoiding the question as one would expect from a dishonest Democrat, Coons went ALL IN on defending the indefensible with this insane response.

“This isn’t just funding a kids show for children, millions of children in countries like Iraq,” Coons claimed.

“It’s a show that helps teach values, helps teach public health, helps prevent kids from dying from dysentery and disease, and helps push values like collaboration, peacefulness, cooperation in a society where the alternative is ISIS extremism and terrorism,” he added.

Spending money on publicly funded television in America is bad enough, but trying to justify its use in a country that has been all-but taken over Iran is another level of bad.

Keep reading

Iraq lowers age of consent to just 9 years old in sick new law so old men can marry children

Iraq has passed a law that would legalise the marriage of children as young as nine.

Three divisive laws have now been passed which give Islamic courts increased authority over family matters, including marriage, divorce and inheritance. Activists argue that this undermines Iraq’s 1959 Personal Status Law, which unified family law and established safeguards for women.

Iraqi law currently sets 18 as the minimum age of marriage in most cases. The changes passed Tuesday would let clerics rule according to their interpretation of Islamic law, which some interpret to allow marriage of girls in their early teens – or as young as 9 under the Jaafari school of Islamic law followed by many Shiite religious authorities in Iraq.

Proponents of the changes defend them as a means to align the law with Islamic principles and reduce Western influence on Iraqi culture.

The parliament also passed a general amnesty law seen as benefiting Sunni detainees and that’s also seen as giving a pass to people involved in corruption and embezzlement. The chamber also passed a land restitution law aimed at addressing Kurdish territorial claims.

Intisar al-Mayali, a human rights activist and a member of the Iraqi Women’s League, said passage of the civil status law amendments “will leave disastrous effects on the rights of women and girls, through the marriage of girls at an early age, which violates their right to life as children, and will disrupt the protection mechanisms for divorce, custody and inheritance for women.” The session ended in chaos and accusations of procedural violations.

“Half of the lawmakers present in the session did not vote, which broke the legal quorum,” a parliamentary official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. He said that some members protested loudly and others climbed onto the parliamentary podium.

After the session, a number of legislators complained about the voting process, under which all three controversial laws – each of which was supported by different blocs – were voted on together.

Keep reading

Iraq preparing to enter Syria conflict

The Prime Minster of Iraq, Mohammed al-Sudani has been authorized by the Iraq House of Representatives to take the decision to enter the Syria war.

Al-Sudani has already mobilized the Iraq army on the border with Syria.

Now, at any moment, he may issue the Order to enter Syria in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Iraq does not want an ISIS-like caliphate on its border. Therefore if Iraq enters, it will want to help Assad.

This is very understandable, especially given their previous experiences with ISIS.

The stakes now, though, seem very much higher because of who is backing the HTS Terrorists. This is an unexpected eventuality

Keep reading

Iraqi Shia Militias Enter Fight In Syria

Reports from the Middle East confirm Iranian proxy-army militias have entered the conflict from Iraq.

Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah and Fatemiyoun have arrived in Syria overnight.

These groups seek to establish a pro-Iranian regime in Iraq, and fought against coalition forces during the Iraq War. They are responsible for killing hundreds of U.S. soldiers.

Keep reading

US Jury Awards $42 Million To 3 Iraqi Men Tortured At Abu Ghraib By Defense Contractor

The released photos documenting torture of prisoners at the United States government’s Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq during the Iraq War disgusted many people who could look beyond the war propaganda to feel sympathy for their fellow human beings.

Even if it was assumed that all the people pictured in the midst of their torture were themselves guilty of heinous crimes — an assumption that lacked foundation, the torture was a breach of civilized behavior.

Two decades later, some accountability has been meted out by a jury in Alexandria, Virginia.

The jury decided Tuesday that the military contractor CACI Premier Technology Inc. is liable to pay a total of 42 million dollars in damages to Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili, and Asa’ad Zuba’e — three former detainees at Abu Ghraib in the 2003 through 2004 time period who had brought a lawsuit against the company whose employees worked as interrogators at the prison.

Keep reading

Veterans: Why we want Trump to keep Iraq withdrawal deal

The election is now behind us and the impacts on America’s foreign policy are emerging. One thing that shouldn’t change is our commitment to the deal reached between the Biden administration and the Iraqi government for a withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Iraq in 2025.

As veterans who served in Iraq, we are urging the new administration to stick to the agreed timetable and see to it that American service members are no longer risking their lives in Iraq.

Ian Robinson, Air Force: Iraq—my first deployment in 2003 feels like a distant memory, yet when I close my eyes, I can vividly picture the sand swirling along the endless road that stretches to the horizon. Sometimes, I can almost feel the scorching heat on my skin; it’s like standing in front of a hairdryer on its highest setting on the hottest day of summer, dusty and dirty. This land has endured a lifetime of conflict and carries a heavy weight of animosity, and our troops still remain stationed there. Iraq is a place where we have never truly belonged, and the most promising path toward future stability may lie in our departure, especially after all the time and money and lives we have spent there.

Laura Hartman, US Army: As a 2004 Iraq War veteran, I’ve seen the toll war takes on warfighters, families, and innocent civilians. War leaves lives shattered, deep moral injuries and genetic conditions that affect generations. After reporting a military sexual assault, I left our FOB only to meet with military lawyers. As a former VA psychiatric nurse, I saw the truth of war unfold through my patients’ pain. Suicide prevention and mental health treatment are shared responsibilities. After decades of lies, bloodshed and betrayal, I support a full withdrawal from Iraq. Focus on nation-building here at home. It’s time to demand political accountability for the consequences of war. Enough is enough.

Adam Jahnke, USMC: Iraq is a bitter memory for me. I was injured and lost two friends from my platoon. I served with 3rd Battalion 2nd Marines, an infantry Company, from 2005-2009, I made two deployments to Iraq in 2006, and 2008. This time was the “best” worst time of my life. The lack of sleep, operational tempo, and challenges of a combat deployment were drastic. Everyone to the right and left of me rose to the occasion and fought hard, for each other, the Marine Corps, and our country. However, many of us including myself now feel our sacrifice was for naught. The loss of life and of resources was wasteful. Many of us suffer lifelong issues with PTSD, TBI, and other health conditions related to our deployments, as we are left wondering: “what was our sacrifice in Iraq for.”

Brian Fay, Army: I enlisted in the Army in 2007 during the second surge into Iraq, but I didn’t deploy until late 2009. I remember earlier that year watching the news as President Obama signed an agreement to draw down troops and leave only a presence of “non-combat” troops to train and advise. I went to Iraq shortly after, wondering just what our mission would be. We had just spent the last year and half training for urban warfare.

Aside from a few missions we ran with the Iraq Police, there was little advising and assisting being done. For a year we went out every night on missions to prevent IEDs on critical supply routes and reacting to rocket and mortar attacks on our FOB. Every day, during my supposedly “non-combat” tour in Iraq, my life and the lives of the soldiers I was with were put in danger. And for what? The only thing the agreement that President Obama signed with Iraq accomplished was restricting our rules of engagement with the enemy and putting us in further danger. There is no such thing as troops being able to stay in a combat zone and not be in some sort of life-threatening danger every single day.

Keep reading

US and Its Corporate Interests Won’t Leave Iraq Anytime Soon – Analyst

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani indicated in January that he was committed to speeding up negotiations with the US-led international coalition on the final withdrawal of its forces from the country. He confirmed Baghdad’s “steadfast and principled” position that the coalition had already fulfilled its mission.

Don’t expect the US to suddenly leave Iraq “while corporate interests steer American foreign policy,” Isa Blumi, an associate professor at the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at Stockholm University, told Sputnik.

“I don’t see this happening […] unless there is a serious revolution in Iraq itself or in the larger region that sees the US leave permanently from these strategic and very lucrative arenas for American corporations to make money,” Blumi said, commenting on the ambiguous announcement of a partial drawdown of US forces in Iraq.

The US footprint “remains omnipresent, hegemonic, willing to use enormous violence,” he noted.

The military presence “will be modified” due to the “vulnerability of explicit American presence” to aerial attacks, which might chip away at the dimming aura of US invincibility, the expert underscored.

Since the beginning of the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the bases of the US-led international coalition in Iraq, as well as US troops in Syria, have come under regular attacks, with armed Shiite groups claiming responsibility in Iraq.

Keep reading

US Not Withdrawing from Iraq

The US and Iraq on Friday announced a plan that will end the mission of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq, but US troops will remain in the country under a “bilateral security partnership.”

Iraqi security officials told The Associated Press that US troops would be withdrawing from a base at the Baghdad International Airport and the Ain al-Asad Airbase in Western Iraq. US officials refuse to say how many of the 2,500 US troops in Iraq, if any, will be leaving the country.

“The US is not withdrawing from Iraq,” Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters on Friday. She said the US would be changing its “footprint” in the country but wouldn’t share any details.

“This is a step in our relationship and a progress towards a bilateral security agreement, and we’ll have more details to share when we’re ready,” Singh said.

Under the plan, the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq will officially end its mission by September 2025, but it will continue to operate in Syria and be supported from Iraqi territory until September 2026. The US has about 900 troops occupying eastern Syria and backs the Kurdish-led SDF, allowing the US to control about one-third of Syria’s territory.

The plan is unlikely to placate the many elements in Iraq who want the US to leave, and it could lead to more rocket and drone attacks on US bases. Recent Israeli escalations in Lebanon could also provoke attacks on US troops in Iraq and Syria.

Keep reading

The Military Tried To Hide Evidence of a Massacre. A Lawsuit Just Exposed It.

The Haditha massacre was one of the worst U.S. actions during the Iraq War. After a roadside bomb killed a Marine in the town of Haditha in November 2005, the rest of his squad shot dead 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women, and children, many of them inside their own homes. The Marine Corps then lied about it, claiming that the victims were all killed by the bomb or by running gun battles with insurgents.

Only dogged reporting by Time Magazine forced the military to open an investigation. No one was ever jailed for the killings or the coverup. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the commander of the squad, pleaded guilty to one count of dereliction of duty and was demoted.

The military avoided a public relations disaster, Gen. Michael Hagee would later brag, because graphic photos of the massacre were never published. Until now.

In the Dark, a true crime podcast published by The New Yorker, dedicated its latest season to re-investigating the Haditha massacre. The producers filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the U.S. military’s files on the incident, then sued when the military refused to hand them over.

Officials claimed they were withholding photos of the massacre out of respect for the victims’ families. Two survivors, Khalid Salman Raseef and Khalid Jamal, then went around Haditha collecting signatures for a petition to release the photos. They won the support of 17 relatives of the victims.

The military gave in. On Tuesday, with permission from the survivors, The New Yorker published several unredacted crime scene photos taken by investigators and by Lance Cpl. Ryan Briones and Lance Cpl. Andrew Wright, two Marines who arrived shortly after the massacre.

The FOIA files also included a recording of a 2014 interview between Hagee and a Marine Corps historian, meant for internal use. The massacre “could have been horrific for the Marine Corps if we did not handle that correctly. Another My Lai. Or another Abu Ghraib,” Hagee claims, referring to the My Lai massacre, which helped turn American opinion against the Vietnam War, and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where U.S. soldiers and CIA officers were photographed torturing and sexually assaulting inmates.

Keep reading

Joe Biden won’t tell the truth about his Iraq war record — and he hasn’t for years

It may fit with official agendas to focus on the dispute between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren at this week’s Democratic primary debate. At least partly, that’s because it lets former Vice President Joe Biden off the hook on Iraq, just as there is finally some attention to foreign policy. People hear the word “mistake” and want it to end there, but Biden’s actual position on the Iraq invasion is indefensible. Biden and his surrogates, such as former Secretary of State John Kerry, continue to claim that he did not favor the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This is false.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ camp has just highlighted a video of Biden speaking at the Brookings Institution in July 2003, after the invasion, in which he expresses support for “finishing this job” in Iraq and says: “The president of the United States is a bold leader and he is popular.” [That video link from David Sirota on Twitter no longer exists, but that clip is currently here.]

As far as showing Biden’s support for the war, that video is the tip of the iceberg.

In that address to Brookings (video) Biden makes brazen pro-war falsehoods, claiming that Saddam Hussein “violated every commitment that he made. He played cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors. He failed to account for the huge gaps in weapons declarations that were documented by UN weapons inspectors and submitted by them to the UN Security Council in 1998, and every nation in that Council believed he possessed those weapons at that time. He refused to abide by any conditions.”

Keep reading