Ralph Nader (standard Green Party Candidate): Hillary Tried To Overcompensate For Gender With Shocking Militarism

Former Green Party and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader labeled 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a “deep corporatist and a deep militarist” who has made peace with the nation’s power structure.

“I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old. She made peace with the power structure and she is a deep corporatist and a deep militarist. One can almost forgive the corporatism. She moved to New York with Bill because that’s where the power is and Wall Street but her militarism is absolutely shocking,” he said during a discussion about his new book, Return to Sender, which focuses on unanswered letters Nader wrote to U.S. presidents about an array of issues.


Nader cited the war in Libya during President Obama’s first term to support his position on Clinton.

“She almost singlehandedly did the Libyan war. The Defense Department was against it, [Secretary Robert] Gates, and she persuaded the White House that it was an easy topple without knowing that in a tribal society with nothing to replace it you would have a civil war, sectarian killings spilling into Africa, weapons everywhere, Mali, central Africa and she’s being accused of Benghazi – the big thing is the huge amount of geography that has been destabilized because of the Libyan overthrow,” he added.

More...http://pjmedia.com/blog/nader-hillary-tried-to-overcompensate-for-gender-with-shocking-militarism/

Scandals Only Make the Clintons Stronger
This is the funniest thing i have heard in ages ... bwhahahhahahahahah. This ad brought to you by the Clinton Foundation.

One has to wonder: When Republicans gathered earlier this year to scheme the defeat of Hillary Clinton, who was the genius who stood up and said, “I know. We’ll challenge the Clintons’ pristine record on ethics. They’ll never see that one coming.”
But of course they did. We all did.

A little newsflash about our past (and probably future) First Family, who pundits, long predicting the Clintons’ coronation, are now suddenly beginning to count out: Scandal surfing is what they always do. They skip the top of the waves, sometimes even giving the impression they might succumb to them. But they never do.

The Clintons have been sent off to their certain doom more times than Tyrion Lannister. During their last sojourn on Pennsylvania Avenue, operators all but installed a new message on the White House switchboard, “If you’re calling with a subpoena for the Clintons, please press 7 now.”
Yet whatever the storm—from blue dresses to funny money from China to an actual impeachment trial—Bill and Hillary are this generation’s Six-Million Dollar Man (and Woman). They always rebuild faster, stronger, and a hell of a lot richer than ever.
Much is now being made of a CNN poll finding that a majority of Americans—57 percent—do not believe Hillary Clinton is honest or trustworthy. But is that really news? Roughly half of the country has felt that way for a long time. Forty-three percent of Americans said that a year ago. And forty-six percent said that back in 2007.

Under the headline, “Hillary Clinton’s honesty problem,” an earnest reporter for The Hill newspaper asks, “Is it possible to win the White House if more than half the electorate thinks you’re dishonest?” Uh, of course, it is, people. The Clintons do this all the time.

Clinton’s margins against her potential Republican contenders is thin, to be sure, but not much different than they have been for months. And, by the way, even in purplish New Hampshire, she’s still beating them all—from Bush to Walker to Rubio. Nationally, CNN has her beating Washington’s favorite Republican, Jeb Bush, by eight points.

More...http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/scandals-clintons-stronger-2016-foundation-president-118683.html?ml=tl_1&cmpid=sf#.VXUdFm5pJep

Chris Christie would crack down on legalized marijuana as president

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says that if he were president, recreational marijuana would be outlawed — even in the states that have voted to legalize it.

In an interview outside a New Hampshire drug treatment center that aired on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Christie said he would enforce federal drug laws in Colorado and Washington.

“Yes, sir,” Christie said when asked whether he’d “go after” recreational marijuana users in those states. “I think there are a lot of people in Colorado who are not too thrilled with what’s going on there.”

When it comes to weed, Christie is the most outspoken of any of the 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls. In a radio interview last year, Christie vowed recreational marijuana would never be legal in New Jersey “as long as I’m governor.”

“For the people who are enamored with the idea with the income, the tax revenue from this, go to Colorado and see if you want to live there,” he said. “See if you want to live in a major city in Colorado where there’s head shops popping up on every corner and people flying into your airport just to come and get high. To me, it’s just not the quality of life we want to have here in the state of New Jersey, and there’s no tax revenue that’s worth that.”

But Christie also admits the war on drugs has been a failure.

“We can no longer incarcerate our way out of this problem,” he said. “This is a disease, and every life is precious. We need to have the ability to give people the tools to deal with the disease. No other disease do we say to folks, ‘No, no, no. You don’t deserve treatment.’”

More...https://www.yahoo.com/politics/christie-would-crack-down-on-legalized-marijuana-121023583856.html?from=FBPAGE&account=Yahoo%20News&campaign%20=Q2&post_id=190381658&Paid_support=No%20Paid%20Support&linkId=14783471

Stupid thing to say considering this won't stake him out new territory in the primary but then he says the war on drugs has been a failure - I don't get it.

GE Aviation Presses Kasich as Ex-Im Becomes Republican Test

The Cincinnati-based operating unit of General Electric Co. employs more than 9,000 people in Ohio, spends $1.2 billion a year with state suppliers and garners almost 60 percent of its revenue from international sales supported by the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Yet Kasich, who’s considering a Republican presidential run, opposes the agency as “corporate welfare.”

GE Aviation contacted Kasich twice during the past 10 months seeking an endorsement of the bank, spokesman Rick Kennedy said. After the governor spoke against it last month, two company executives held a conference call with members of his staff and his development agency to express their surprise and to “educate.”

Congress faces a June 30 deadline to reauthorize the 81-year-old bank, which helps foreign companies buy U.S. goods with taxpayer-backed loans and which was routinely renewed in the past. Republican candidates now face a choice of whom to anger: business allies who say killing the agency would hurt exports and jobs or ideologically driven Tea Party voters who deride “crony capitalism.”

“This issue has become politicized to the point where the facts are sacrificed,” David Joyce, chief executive officer of GE Aviation, wrote last month in the Cincinnati Enquirer.

When Kasich was in Congress, he voted to reauthorize the bank. That was before the need to fix a broken system and give companies a better opportunity to compete, Kasich said. Opponents say the bank uses taxpayer-backed assistance to disproportionately benefit large corporations and that it interferes with the free market.

“Any time anybody has a subsidy, they want to keep it,” Kasich said in an interview. “I love GE, they’ve been great in Ohio, but I think they can figure their way around this.”

The only Republican candidates who have publicly supported the bank are Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Graham has highlighted the bank’s impact on Boeing Co., which builds the 787 Dreamliner in North Charleston and is its largest beneficiary. Santorum, who has made restoring manufacturing a focus, says the institution is critical.

Among Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley support reauthorization. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont opposes “rewarding companies that are outsourcing jobs overseas,” spokesman Warren Gunnels said.

More...http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-05/ge-aviation-presses-kasich-as-ex-im-becomes-test-for-republicans

Rand Paul's Off GOP Message Again, This Time on Gitmo

If a Republican wins the White House, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay will almost surely be kept open for the foreseeable future. That is, unless Rand Paul nabs the GOP nomination.

Yet again, the senator from Kentucky has scouted out a position on a national-security issue that makes him an outlier, at least among senators running for president.

That was clear Monday after Marco Rubio introduced two amendments that would extend the use of the prison: one to prohibit funding to programs that would help close the facility, and another that sets a series of tough ground rules before a president could transfer U.S.-held land or water back to Cuba. This follows Rubio's statement two months prior that he would "absolutely" reopen the facility known as Gitmo if Obama somehow closed it, as he promised he would on his first day in office.

Rubio's amendments are more expansive than one proposed by Ted Cruz, the Texas conservative, to end funding for the transfer of detainees to countries covered by the State Department's travel warnings. Cruz's amendment would codify the U.S.'s informal, revived ban on transferring the vast majority of detainees, who are Yemeni, back home. But Cruz, Florida's Rubio and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham support a bill that would prohibit for two years the transfer of detainees who are considered "medium-risk" or higher, and any transfers to Yemen.

Even former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a likely presidential candidate, recently said the U.S. should keep Gitmo open, despite the public statements of his brother. After he left office, former President George W. Bush, who oversaw the use and expansion of the prison after 9/11, called Gitmo a "propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies," and reiterated that it was his goal to close it in his second term.

And then there's Paul.

More...http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/rand-paul-s-off-gop-message-again-this-time-on-gitmo-20150608

Good job, Mr. Klye! Making the effort is the best part of recovering from unfortunate circumstances.

Why we should listen to Rand Paul

It turns out that Republicans in Washington are united on one issue: their hatred of Rand Paul. John McCain says Paul is "the worst possible candidate . . . on the most important issue."

Marco Rubio opines that Paul "has no idea what he's talking about."

Lindsey Graham concludes that it would be "devastating" for the party to nominate him.

Conservative commentators are even more vicious and ad hominem.

The obsession with Paul is striking. In a Post op-ed article last summer, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry mentioned Paul 10 times. I cannot recall an instance in recent decades in which so much vitriol has been directed against a leading political figure by his own party.

-(hit piece ensues)

The attacks are almost entirely focused on Paul's foreign policy, which is routinely characterized as dangerous and isolationist. In fact, the real problem appears to be that Paul is trying to force Republicans and many Democrats to defend what has become a lazy, smug consensus in favor of an ever-expanding national security state.

I have read Paul's proposals and speeches on foreign policy. There are some bloopers, odd comments, and rhetorical broadsides, but for the most part his views are intellectually serious and well within a tradition of what he (correctly) calls conservative realism.

They are also politically courageous. Paul has taken positions and cited authorities that are deeply unpopular with his own party.

Yes, of course, he craves publicity and engages in stunts. What politician doesn't? But what makes his opponents most uncomfortable is the substance, not the style.

Take the most recent example: his opposition to the blanket extension of the Patriot Act, which has resulted in some modest restraint on the vast expansion of government powers since 9/11. (The new checks and balances are close to ones recommended by a panel put together by the Obama administration.)

In defending his position, Paul notes — correctly — that we would not even know of the existence of this system of metadata collection if not for Edward Snowden's revelations, that the FBI has been unable to cite a single terrorist plot disrupted by it, and that the special courts in place have few checks and little transparency.

He cites, glowingly, the 1979 dissenting opinion regarding the dangers of government collection of phone records by Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, the Supreme Court's two most prominent liberals of the past half-century.

Or consider Paul's views on lifting the embargo on Cuba, on which he writes: "The supporters of the embargo . . . fall strangely silent when asked how trade with Cuba is so different than trade with Russia or China or Vietnam." This is not a path to primary voters' hearts in Florida.

He has raised uncomfortable questions that no other politician dares raise about Anwar al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda leader who was killed in a car on a road in Yemen by a US drone strike. Paul has pointed out that since Awlaki was a US citizen, this action creates an extraordinary legal precedent — that the president of the United States can execute a US citizen without trial. He cites approvingly the American Civil Liberties Union, which, he writes, has pointed out that "in modern history, a presidential order to kill an American citizen away from a battlefield is unprecedented."

In the Middle East, Paul has called for caution before the next military intervention, suggesting that it is worth learning some lessons from the past decade. US military interventions, he has argued, have destabilized countries and led to perverse consequences. "As secular dictators fell in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and now Syria, radical jihadists exploited the vacuum," he has noted.

In Afghanistan, he said, President Obama added 50,000 troops to the US force and spent an additional $120 billion on the effort with little effect. Afghanistan today is by some measures as dangerous as ever — after 14 years of continuous US military intervention and $1 trillion spent, by one estimate. Surely this is worth pondering?

I don't agree with Rand Paul on many things, including foreign policy. I think some of his positions on civil rights are historically blind, cruel, and dangerous. But in the arena of national security, he has time and again raised important, inconvenient questions, only to have them ruled out of order and to be told that he is a crank, far outside the mainstream. In fact, it would be useful and important for Republicans — and Democrats — to stop the name-calling and actually discuss and debate his ideas.
...

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-we-should-listen-to-rand-paul-2015-6

JON VOIGHT (at Republican Jewish Coalition Gala) on Rand "He’s a little controversial... and that's good too"

...
Voight was honored at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Summer Gala Sunday at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel with the Hollywood Visionary Award. He said he’s impressed with the slew of Republicans who have already declared.

“It’s good to have debate — real debate — a difference on issues and different sides of the issues,” Voight said. “It’s an important election. I hope people are paying attention.”

Matthew Brooks, executive director of the RJC, said a possible Republican president is the best choice for the future of Israel’s relationship with the United States.

“It’s going to be very clear between a Hillary Clinton-likely candidacy, which means four more years of Barack Obama’s failed policies that relate to Israel, or it means a radically different Republican policy, which returns Israel back to its rightful place as a true and unwavering ally and a special friend of the United States.”

Voight specifically addressed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who recently created controversy over his filibuster of the Patriot Act. Paul announced his bid for the presidency on April 7.

“I understand that he’s a little controversial at the moment and he’s using that in some way to get a little attention for his campaign, and that’s good, too,” Voight said.

The Republican Jewish Coalition is an organization of Jewish Republicans, with more than 40,000 members and 45 chapters nationwide.

http://variety.com/2015/scene/news/jon-voight-republican-candidates-election-jewish-coalition-gala-1201514313/

Man cited by Rand Paul in press for criminal justice reform dies

On the campaign trail, Rand Paul often emphasizes two major goals: criminal justice reform and expanding the Republican Party to include more young and minority voters. In particular, the Kentucky senator has pushed the GOP to speak out against policies that lead to the imprisonment of minorities. In doing so, Paul often cites the story of an black New York City man, Kalief Browder, who spent three years of his young life locked up at Rikers Island prison without trial.

The story has ended in tragedy: Browder, now 22, – committed suicide at his home on Saturday.

Late Sunday evening, Paul offered his condolences to the family of the young man whose story he has told many times.

“Kelley and I extend our most heartfelt sorrow and deepest condolences to the family of Kalief Browder. May his soul rest in peace,” Paul wrote on Facebook.

In 2010, Browder was a 16-year-old high school sophomore arrested for allegedly stealing a backpack. He insisted he was innocent, but spent the next three years of his life – missing his junior and senior year of high school – locked up, awaiting trial. Browder’s case was eventually dismissed by prosecutors in March of 2013.

...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/man-cited-rand-paul-press-criminal-justice-reform-dies

Breitbart (big right wing website) Presidential Primary - Vote For Rand!

Breitbart is having a "straw poll primary" ...vote and pass it on!

hxxp://www.breitbart.com/primary/ - Unlinked so they don't see legions coming from this site.

Latest results:

Cruz - 31%
Walker - 24%
Paul - 13%
Perry 5%
Carson 5%

Means little but just for fun.

Lindsey (or Flimsy as I call him) Graham comes out against Rand Paul's Kurdistan Idea

Interesting discussion last week on Morning Joe, where Scarbourugh acts unintentionally as a Paul surrogate, suggesting that Iraq be split up, and Graham says no we need to keep the country intact.

MSNBC Video...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrQawmbwclA

I don't get it, 4 donuts shaped like 0s equal a 0? Or, are they inferring that 4 donuts will equal the amount of digits the price will be at when their operations get rolling? Can't see a reason for donuts on their instagram page for any other reasons.

Rand Paul: Lindsey Graham "doesn't rise beyond middle school kind of rhetoric"

Reason: Lindsey Graham said, as part of his critique of your performance, that you're more scared of the NSA than you are of ISIS. Is that true?

Rand Paul: You know, I think there are people who...you have to consider the source. This is a person who said that he would use censorship if he needed to. This is the same person who said, "Well, when people ask for an attorney, you should tell them to shut up." This is the same person who's also said, "If they ask for a judge just drone 'em." I mean, some of the stuff I think doesn't rise beyond middle school kind of rhetoric. So it's hard to know when to respond to people like that.

But I think ultimately if you want to talk among adults about, "Is ISIS a threat to our country?" Yes. "Is NSA a threat sometimes to our liberty?" Yes. I personally don't think you have to trade one for the other. I don't think you have to trade your liberty for security. I think you can have both. I think the Constitution can be a powerful tool. The Constitution never said we wouldn't go after records of criminals or terrorists. The Constitution just says you have to individualize the suspicion; put a person's name on it. I tell people, "I want to collect more records of terrorists, just less records of innocent Americans."

Republican Peter King (dumbass-neocon) won’t retreat from attack on Sen. Rand Paul

...
The bill passed by the Senate, known as the USA Freedom Act, resumed the collection of bulk phone records but required telecommunications companies, not the NSA, to hold the data. The government now must make specific requests to access the records.

The House had previously approved the USA Freedom Act. President Obama singed it into law shortly after it passed the Senate.

“We can have differences, we can debate them, we can work them out. You can vote against NSA is you want to,” said Mr. King. “But to use your one-person power to unilaterally shut it down, knowing that it is going to be reopened in a couple days — all he was doing was hurting American security at the same time, asking people to send him contributions. That was shameful and disgraceful.”
...

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/7/republican-peter-king-wont-retreat-attack-sen-rand/#ixzz3cRCDSJbJ

GOP neocon rep: Rand Paul 'absolutely disgraceful' on NSA

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said on Sunday that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had acted only in his own interest during the debate over the USA Freedom Act last week.

“What Rand Paul did was absolutely disgraceful,” he told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “It was shameful and disgraceful.”

King took issue with Paul’s attacks on the National Security Agency (NSA) and its intelligence-gathering methods.

“Rand Paul actually wanted to shut down the NSA for several days for no reason other than to raise money for his presidential campaign,” King said of the 2016 contender.

“He was hurting the American peoples’ security,” he added.

The Senate voted last Tuesday to approve the USA Freedom Act.

It ended the NSA’s bulk, warrantless collection of individual phone records while renewing less-controversial counterterrorism and intelligence measures.

King said changing the agency’s powers was too risky, given the threats menacing America.

He cited last Thursday’s news that hackers had exposed the data of 4 million current and former federal employees as an example of what is at stake in the national security fight.

More...http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/244228-gop-rep-rand-paul-absolutely-disgraceful-on-nsa

Nevada Stays With Caucus System in Blow to Jeb Bush, Boon to Rand Paul

Nevada is keeping its caucuses for selecting presidential nominees, a blow to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and other contenders who hoped to shift the early-voting state to a system of primaries.

Caucuses are considered favorable to candidates who have a network of highly motivated activists, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who has met with Bush, backed legislation to change to a primary, but the bill never came up for a vote before the Legislature adjourned Monday night. It was the subject of frantic horse-trading and lobbying in the state capitol in Carson City until the final minutes of the session.

The state's Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison, chairman of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential campaign in Nevada, had pushed for the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nevada-stays-caucus-system-blow-jeb-bush-31475619

Cato: Rating GOP Candidates on Taxes

Rand Paul posted a detailed plan on his campaign website a couple of months ago, but he has since taken it down amid reports that he is revising it to lower rates even further. As originally posted, Paul’s plan would establish a 17 percent flat tax; however, he is reportedly working with Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and others to bring that rate down to as low as 13 or 14 percent. The plan would also include a personal exemption, unlike most flat-tax plans, thereby lowering the effective tax rate still further. The size of the exemption was not spelled out, but according to some reports it could be as much as 20 percent. Capital gains, interest, and dividends would all be untaxed.

The estate, gift, and alternative minimum taxes would all be eliminated. Paul also plans a payroll-tax exemption for low- and middle-income earners, though he has not provided details, and such a cut could complicate financing for Social Security. And Paul also proposes even larger tax cuts for high-poverty areas. Paul himself estimates that his plan would reduce revenue by about $700 billion per year, though he intends to propose spending cuts to offset the loss. Paul’s foreign policy came under attack recently as “Barack Obama’s third term,” but he certainly isn’t pursuing Obama’s tax policies.

...http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rating-gop-contenders-taxes

Hillary Clinton Traces Friendly Path, Troubling Party

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be dispensing with the nationwide electoral strategy that won her husband two terms in the White House and brought white working-class voters and great stretches of what is now red-state America back to Democrats.

Instead, she is poised to retrace Barack Obama’s far narrower path to the presidency: a campaign focused more on mobilizing supporters in the Great Lakes states and in parts of the West and South than on persuading undecided voters.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides say it is the only way to win in an era of heightened polarization, when a declining pool of voters is truly up for grabs. Her liberal policy positions, they say, will fire up Democrats, a less difficult task than trying to win over independents in more hostile territory — even though a broader strategy could help lift the party with her.

This early in the campaign, however, forgoing a determined outreach effort to all 50 states, or even most of them, could mean missing out on the kind of spirited conversation that can be a unifying feature of a presidential election. And it could leave Mrs. Clinton, if she wins, with the same difficulties Mr. Obama has faced in governing with a Republican-controlled Congress.

More...http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-traces-friendly-path-troubling-party.html

She is running scared w/ her tail between her legs. I mean, who doesn't go out and try and win over independents unless you know you're just gonna go the class warfare/fearmongering route w/o bringing anything new to the table. Democrats are right to be concerned especially if Rand starts breaking out of the pack in the GOP.

The Coming Democratic Panic
Watch what happens if Hillary Clinton falls behind in the polls.

When a CNN poll last week showed Hillary Clinton leading Rand Paul by a single percentage point (48-47) and only three points ahead of Marco Rubio (49-46) and Scott Walker (49-46), it was mildly shocking. In April, her lead over the three Republican presidential candidates had been in double digits: Paul (58-39), Rubio (55-41), and Walker (59-37).

But wait. If the next CNN survey shows Clinton actually behind one or two or three of the GOP candidates, it won’t be just shocking. It will send Democrats into a near-panic over the possibility of losing the White House in 2016, even with their preferred candidate, Clinton, as nominee.

Such a poll result isn’t far-fetched as we watch Clinton’s campaign deteriorate. True, head-to-head matchups this early in the presidential cycle are almost never predictive. But in this case, it’s the psychological impact that matters.

That Clinton’s candidacy is in trouble is indisputable. She’s not threatened with losing the Democratic nomination—at least not yet. She has the well-financed Clinton machine and a national network of supporters on which she can rely. The campaigns of her Democratic opponents are small and weak in comparison.

But the rationale for her bid for the presidency, the strategy of her campaign, and the tactics she’s adopted—all have failed to stop her steady decline. The expectation of Clinton’s glide into the White House in 2016 is gone.

More...http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/coming-democratic-panic_965001.html

Dude, where’s my Humvee? Iraq losing equipment to Islamic State at staggering rate

Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armored vehicles when Islamic State overran the northern city of Mosul in June 2014, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Sunday in an interview with Iraqiya state television. Coupled with previous losses of American weapons, the conclusion is simple: The United States is effectively supplying Islamic State with tools of war the militant group cannot otherwise hope to acquire from its patrons.

In addition to the Humvees, Iraqi forces previously abandoned significant types and numbers of heavy weapons to Islamic State. For example, losses to Islamic State include at least 40 M1A1 main battle tanks, as well as small arms and ammunition, including 74,000 machine guns, and as many as 52 M198 howitzer mobile gun systems.

“We lost a lot of weapons,” Abadi admitted.

To help replenish Iraq’s motor pool, the U.S. State Department last year approved a sale to Iraq of 1,000 Humvees, along with their armor upgrades, machine guns and grenade launchers. The United States previously donated 250 Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers (MRAPs) to Iraq, plus unaccountable amounts of material left behind when American forces departed in 2011. The United States is currently in the process of moving to Iraq 175 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, 55,000 rounds of main tank-gun ammunition, $600 million in howitzers and trucks, $700 million worth of Hellfire missiles and 2,000 AT-4 rockets.

The Hellfires and AT-4′s, anti-tank weapons, are presumably going to be used to help destroy the American armor in the hands of Islamic State. The United States is also conducting air strikes to destroy weapons seized by Islamic State. It’s a surreal state of affairs in which American weaponry is being sent into Iraq to destroy American weaponry previously sent into Iraq. If a new sequel to Catch-22 were to be written, this would be the plot line.

The United States also continues to spend money on training the Iraqi military. Some 3,000 American soldiers are currently in Iraq preparing Iraqi soldiers to perhaps someday fight Islamic State; many of the Americans are conducting the training on former military bases abandoned by the United States following Gulf War 2.0. In addition, some $1.2 billion in training funds for Iraq were tucked into an omnibus spending bill that Congress passed earlier this year. This is in spite of the sad reality that from 2003 to 2011, the United States spent $25 billion training Iraqi security forces.

The return on these training investments? The Iraqi army had 30,000 soldiers in Mosul, who ran away in the face of about 1,000 Islamic State fighters. The same thing happened just a few weeks ago in Ramadi, where 10,000 Iraqi soldiers, collapsing faster than a cardboard box in the rain, fled ahead of only 400 Islamic State fighters. The Iraqis left behind more weapons.

In an interview with me a year ago, Chris Coyne, professor of economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, predicted this exact scenario well before the United States sent troops back into Iraq:

“The United States government provided significant amounts of military hardware to the Iraqi government with the intention that it would be used for good. However, during the Islamic State offensive, many of the Iraqis turned and ran, leaving behind the United States-supplied hardware. This weapons windfall may further alter the dynamics in Syria.

“Now the United States government wants to provide more military supplies to the Iraqi government to combat Islamic State. But I haven’t heard many people recognizing, let alone discussing, the potential negative unintended consequences of doing so. How do we know the weapons and supplies will be used as desired? Why should we have any confidence that supplying more military hardware to a country with a dysfunctional and ineffective government will lead to a good outcome either in Iraq or in the broader region?”

The impact of all these heavy weapons falling into Islamic State hands is significant for American foreign policy goals in the Middle East. A report prepared for the United Nations Security Council warns that Islamic State possesses sufficient reserves of small arms, ammunition and vehicles to wage its war in Syria and Iraq for two more years.

And that presumes the United States won’t be losing more tools of war to Islamic State, thanks to the Iraqi army.

More...http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/02/dude-wheres-my-humvee-iraqi-equipment-losses-to-islamic-state-are-out-of-control/?utm_content=15915441&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

No freaking wonder why ISIS is so potent w/ such a small crew. They can roam the countryside in these MRAPs and have unlimited ammo and heavier power to overwhelm everyone, including the chumps in the Iraqi army.