Mediaboss Marketing

In his first State of the Union address, President Joe Biden focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, inflation and the coronavirus pandemic.

At one point he turned to the U.S. military, and started to speak about toxic burn pits at bases in Iraq and Afghanistan that may have caused serious illnesses among troops possibly including his late son Beau Biden, who served in the military and died from brain cancer in 2015.

But as he spoke, he made a questionable claim about the number of times he had visited the two countries.

"Our troops in Iraq have faced and Afghanistan have faced many dangers. One being stationed at bases, breathing in toxic smoke from burn pits," Biden said during the March 1 joint session of Congress. "Many of you have been there. Ive been in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan over 40 times. These burn pits that incinerate waste the wastes of war, medical and hazardous material, jet fuel, and so much more."

PolitiFact readers reached out and inquired whether the statement was accurate. Its not, and it was not included in his prepared remarks.

Biden has traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq many times, including to visit his son who was serving in Iraq. But his statement nearly doubled the number of trips. And its not the first time Biden has embellished the number of times hes traveled to the two countries.

In 2019, while on the campaign trail, Biden told a dramatic but false story about a general asking him to travel to Afghanistan to recognize the heroism of a Navy captain. At one point while relaying the tale, Biden said he had been to Iraq and Afghanistan "over 30 times."

But his campaign later clarified, and told the Washington Post that the correct number was actually 21. Some of these trips occurred when Biden was serving as a U.S. senator from 1973 to 2009.

There have been no news reports or press releases about Biden visiting either country for the remainder of 2019 or any time in 2020.

PolitiFact reached out to the White House for comment but did not hear back. Just after Biden made this statement, he was interrupted by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., who yelled out a reference to 13 service members who died while the U.S. was evacuating Afghanistan. Boebert was shushed by her colleagues.

As president, Biden visited Europe in a trip that included meetings with NATO leaders and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He traveled to Italy and the United Kingdom in the fall of 2021 for the G20 Leaders Summit and the U.N.s convention on climate change.

According to searches of Nexis news archives, the last time Biden visited Iraq was in 2016 to try to quell a political rebellion that threatened to undercut the Obama administration's counterterrorism efforts. It was his first visit to the country in five years.

The last time we found that he traveled to Afghanistan was in 2011 for meetings meant to gauge the progress toward a drawdown of U.S. forces.

Our ruling

Biden said he has visited Iraq and Afghanistan "over 40 times."

This isnt accurate. There is no evidence that Biden has been to either country since being president. The last time he was in Iraq appears to be in 2016. For Afghanistan, it was in 2011.

The latest estimate of his travels to the two countries come from his presidential campaign,which said in 2019 that he had visited both a combined 21 times.

Bidens statement is off by about half. We rate it False.

PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
Biden exaggerates trips to Iraq, Afghanistan in State of the Union address - PolitiFact

The guilty can be devious in concealing their crimes, and their role in them. The greater the crime, the more devious the strategy of deception. The breaking of international law, and the breaching of convention, is a field replete with such figures.

Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine has presented a particularly odious grouping, a good number of them neoconservatives, a chance to hand wash and dry before the idol of international law. Law breakers become defenders of oracular force, arguing for the territorial integrity of States and the sanctity of borders, and the importance of the UN Charter.

Reference can be made to Hitlers invasions during the Second World War with a revoltingly casual disposition, a comparison that seeks to eclipse the role played by other gangster powers indifferent to the rule and letter of international comity.

Speculation can be had that the man in the Kremlin has gone mad, if he was ever sane to begin with. As Jonathan Cook writes with customary accuracy, western leaders tend to find it convenient that every time another country defies the Wests projection of power, the western media can agree on one thing: that the foreign government in question is led by a madman, a psychopath or a megalomaniac.

It might well be said that the US-led Iraq invasion in 2003 was a product of its own mental disease, the product of ideological and evangelical madness, accompanied by a conviction that states could be forcibly pacified into a state of democracy. Where there was no evidence of links between Baghdad and al-Qaeda operatives responsible for the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, it was simply made up.

The most brazen fiction in this regard was the claim that Iraq had the means to fire weapons of mass destruction at Europe within 45 minutes. Showing that farce sometimes precedes tragedy, that assessment was cobbled from a doctoral dissertation.

When the invasion, and subsequent occupation of Iraq, led to sectarian murderousness and regional destabilisation, invigorating a new form of Islamicist zeal, the neocons were ready with their ragbag excuses. In 2016, David Frum could offer the idiotic assessment that the US-UK intervention offered Iraq a better future. Whatever [the] Wests mistakes: sectarian war was a choice Iraqis made for themselves. Such ungrateful savages.

On Fox News Sunday, this nonsense was far away in the mind of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. She could merely nod at the assertion by host Harris Faulkner that when you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime I mean, I think were at just a real, basic, basic point there.

Jaw-droppingly to those familiar with Rices war drumming in 2003, she agreed that the attack on Ukraine was certainly against every principle of international law and international order. That explained why Washington was throwing the book at [the Russians] now in terms of economic sanctions and punishments is also part of it. She also felt some comfort that Putin had managed to unite NATO in ways that I didnt think I would ever see again after the end of the Cold War.

As Bushs National Security Advisor, Rice was distinctly untroubled that her advice created a situation where international law would be grossly breached. She was dismissive of the role played by UN weapons inspectors and their failed efforts in finding those elusive weapons of mass destruction and evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, she warned in 2002. But we dont want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

As the seedy conspiracy to undermine security in the Middle East and shred the UN Charter gathered place in 2002, those against any Iraq invasion were also denouncing opponents as traitors, or at the very least wobbly, on the issue of war. Frum, writing in March 2003, was particularly bothered by conservatives against the war the likes of Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, Thomas Fleming, and Llewellyn Rockwell. Thankfully, they were relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They favoured a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

In the Ukraine conflict, the trend has reasserted itself. Neoconservatives are out to find those appeasing types on the Right and everywhere else. Today, rues Rod Dreher, theyre denouncing us on the Right who oppose war with Russia as Neville Chamberlains. Conservatives are mocked for daring to understand why Russia might have an issue with NATO expansion, or suggest that Russias invasion of Ukraine is not, in the end, of vital interest to Washington. Its Chamberlains folly, comes the improbable claim from Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast, delivered with a confident Churchillian swagger.

A more revealing insight into neoconservative violence, the lust for force, and an almost admiring take on the way Putin has behaved, can be gathered in John Boltons recent assessment of the invasion. Bolton, it should be remembered, detests the United Nations and was, just to show that President George W. Bush had a sense of humour, made US ambassador to it. For him, international law is less a reality than a guide ignored when power considerations are at play an almost Putinesque view.

Almost approvingly, he writes in The Economist of the need to pay attention to what adversaries say. He recalls Putins remark about the Soviet Unions disintegration as the 20th centurys greatest catastrophe. He notes those efforts to reverse the trend: the use of invasions, annexations and the creation of independent states, and the adoption of less kinetic means to bring states like Belarus, Armenia and Kazakhstan into closer Russian orbits.

With a touch of delight, Bolton sees that the aggressive use of military force is back in style. The rule-based international order just took a direct hit, not that it was ever as sturdy as imagined in elite salons and academic cloisters. And with that, the war trumpet sounds. World peace is not at hand. Rhetoric and virtue-signalling are no substitute for new strategic thinking and higher defence budgets. In this equation, the UN Charter is truly doomed.

Read more:
Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine: Outing The Iraq War White Washers OpEd - Eurasia Review

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill that would greatly expand healthcare coverage for military veterans exposed to toxic chemicals and other materials.

The Honor our PACT Act would grant new disability benefits to 23 illnesses that have been linked to battlefield pollutants, most notably smoke from so-called burn pits that gained such notoriety in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill passed the House with a 256-174 vote.

For too long, Congress and VA have been slow to act on toxic exposure but today, the House took a bipartisan vote to change that and finally make good on our promise to toxic-exposed veterans, said Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), the bills sponsor and Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman on Thursday.

The vote came two days after President Joe Biden delivered his State of the Union speech, where he called upon Congress to pass a law to make sure veterans devastated by toxic exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan finally get the benefits and the comprehensive health care they deserve.

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military used open-air pits to burn waste everything from plastics, medical waste, computer equipment, tires, all doused with jet fuel and set ablaze. While the practice was supposedly curtailed in 2009, a 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office found that the military was still using unsafe protocols to burn waste, and Stars and Stripes reported in 2014 that the practice had made a resurgence in Iraq with the return of U.S. forces there.

As many as 3.5 million service members are thought to have suffered some exposure to toxic fumes and substances from burn pits since 2001.

Accessing health care for medical issues thought to be associated with that exposure has proven a challenge for many, as the effects of exposure to smoke and fumes from the burn pits was poorly understood.

The Department of Veterans Affairs had attributed a limited range of health effects to burn pit exposure and had placed the responsibility on individual veterans to prove that their adverse health effects were directly attributable to burn pit exposure. Nearly 78 percent of these claims have been denied since 2007.

In addition to burn pit exposure, the bill would also expand healthcare coverage to Cold War-era service members exposed to radiation, add hypertension and monoclonal gammopathy to the list of illnesses linked to Agent Orange exposure in the Vietnam War and require new medical exams for all veterans with toxic exposure claims.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill could cost $208 billion over the next decade. That price tag is also the major sticking point for those who have opposed the measure.

While the Senate has not indicated it would vote on the Honor the PACT Act, it did last month approve a bill that would create a one-year enrollment period for VA medical care for post-9/11 combat veterans who served after 1998 and never enrolled, and also extend the enrollment period for all formerly deployed post-9/11 combat vets from five years to 10. Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) described it as a first step.

Nevertheless, at a Wednesday news conference, advocates for the bill encouraged the Senate to take up the bill as opposed to a more piecemeal approach.

If he [Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)] does that, said advocate John Feal, Then I will make his life miserable.

Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

Read the original:
Congress takes step towards granting free health care to millions of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans - Task & Purpose

Iraq is starting to catch its breath. The Iraqi city of Hatra has suffered from damage and lost its beauty. However, after so much torment, the ancient city is getting restored and revived. With the recovery of three colossal sculptures, Hatra starts to undo the destruction it has faced!

The city of Hatra witnessed ISIS, taking its guns and pickaxes to its historical monuments that date back to the Roman and Parthian empires. Some sites were even destroyed during the battles to drive ISIS out. Their rule over the city has led to so much loss, with smashed historical pieces wasted.

However, the countrys efforts to regain its losses are going in the right direction. In association with the Italian International Association for Mediterranean and Oriental Studies, Iraqi experts are unveiling the countrys ancient heritage. Meanwhile, its all done with funding of the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas.

The head of antiquities in Nineveh province, Khair Al-Din Ahmed Nasser, said, We recovered some pieces. Others which were missing, we replaced with the same type of stone. Furthermore, restored pieces include a Roman-style, life-size sculpture and faces on the side of the great temple.

The project of restoring the city is more than just reclaiming Hatras ancient history. It also provides training for the curators and archaeologists of Iraq, marking a positive change and what seems like a bright future for the country!

Nadine is a Faculty of Arts graduate who's into telling stories. She loves music, singing, and watches movies in her free time. Nadine is interested in handicrafts and creating. One day, she is going to have a number one bestseller novel.

See the original post here:
Iraq Is Celebrating the Restoration of Three Major Sculptures That Were Destroyed by ISIS - Scoop Empire

Nigel Ashton discusses Margaret Thatchers handling of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and draws lessons for future prime ministers.

How far can an international crisis protect an embattled Prime Minister from political peril at home? Amid Russias war on Ukraine, the question remains relevant in 10 Downing Street. Precisely the same question faced Margaret Thatcher during her final months in office. Thatchers resignation is almost universally remembered as having resulted from her loss of Cabinet support due to differences over Europe and the poll tax. But look closer and her erratic handling of the crisis caused by Iraqs invasion of Kuwait was also a significant factor.

Thatchers earlier, successful handling of the Falklands War in 1982 is widely regarded as the watershed moment in her premiership. Her determination that Argentine aggression in the South Atlantic would not stand was vindicated as Britain emerged victorious. So, when the Kuwaiti crisis broke in August 1990, the prime minister found herself once more apparently in her element. Demonstrating her credentials as a war leader would surely help see off discontent over Europe and the poll tax. There was much in common between the Falklands and Kuwaiti crises, both of which involved clear breaches of international law by invading powers.

But there were also crucial differences. Whereas over the Falklands Thatcher had gritted her teeth and accepted the initial US attempt to seek a diplomatic resolution, over the Gulf she was much less restrained in highlighting what she saw as US weakness. So, in May 1982, her private rebuke to President Reagan, in which she reproached him that our principles are no longer what we believe, nor those we were elected to serve, but what the dictator will accept, was never sent. In 1990, by contrast, her reproach to President Bush this is no time to go wobbly, George was leaked as a public lesson. And it was not appreciated by the decorated former World War Two naval pilot. In his first message to John Major after he had succeeded Thatcher in Number 10 Bush pointedly observed that the United States was not to use Mrs Thatchers phrase going wobbly. It was just a question of being seen to be going the extra mile for peace.

In fact, as the crisis unfolded Thatcher showed herself to be fundamentally out of sympathy with Bushs approach of building multilateral support for action through the United Nations. The UN she believed was a diplomatic swamp and venturing into it would only sap the Wests resolve to act in defence of its own interests. Senior officials were astonished that she thought she could tell the Americans how to do this. More significantly, her Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd wrote privately that the PM, increasingly Boadicean, is now definitely of the war party.

When US Secretary of State James Baker told Thatcher of the USs intention to seek a UN resolution authorising the use of force, Thatcher told him: You dont need it politically. Bakers reply was even more withering for the courtesy with which it was delivered: With all due respect maam, I think you need to let us be the judge of what we need politically.

But perhaps the two most damaging features of Thatchers handling of the Gulf crisis which directly undermined her position with senior colleagues were her obsessive secrecy and her extraordinary advocacy of the use of chemical weapons against Iraqi forces.

During the crisis Thatcher evidently saw communication at the highest level with the United States as simply too important to be shared with the responsible ministers. So, when her Private Secretary Charles Powell asked her whether a discussion with the US National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft about war plans should be shared with Foreign Secretary Hurd and Defence Secretary Tom King, Thatchers response was telling: no need to say anything to others. It was an extraordinary state of affairs for the PM to instruct her Private Secretary not to brief the two key responsible ministers about preparations for war.

On the possible use of chemical weapons, her position was even more startling. Thatcher pressed the US repeatedly to be ready to retaliate with Chemical Weapons in response to any Iraqi use. The normally hawkish US Defence Secretary Dick Cheney must have been astonished to find himself significantly out-hawked on this issue by Thatcher who berated him that if we wished to deter a CW [chemical warfare] attack we must have CW weapons available. Once again, the put-down from the Americans was direct: the President had a particular aversion to chemical weapons Cheney shot back. But she remained undeterred: it would be justified for the United States to use CW against Iraqi armoured formations in Kuwait if the Iraqis used it first, she insisted. The Iron Lady had morphed into Chemical Maggie.

Throughout the crisis Thatcher kept senior colleagues at arms length. When her Chancellor John Major stepped into Number Ten at the end of November 1990, he had to start from scratch in building up a picture of Britains preparations for war. Normal decision-making processes were bypassed to such an extent that one senior official later confided: If things had gone wrong, we might have had difficulty in convincing a Franks-type inquiry that all the big decisions to commit UK forces were properly taken. This imperial style at a time of crisis was a significant factor in her demise.

So, what can Boris Johnson learn from the circumstances surrounding Thatchers fall? Not only does managing a major international crisis not insulate you from domestic threats, mishandling such a crisis can undermine a precarious position still further. Crisis management is about the careful calibration of response and the precise choice of words for maximum effect. Losing the confidence of allies, straying from the script for rhetorical effect, and bypassing proper processes can all prove politically fatal.

____________________

Note: the above draws on the authors latest book False Prophets: British Leaders Fateful Fascination with the Middle East from Suez to Syria(Atlantic Books, 2022).

About the Author

Nigel Ashton is Professor of International History at the LSE.

Featured image credit:Photo by Chris Beckett on Flickr via a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence.

More here:
Chemical Maggie? Thatcher's handling of the crisis caused by Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and lessons for Boris Johnson - British Politics and...