U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 11, 2014 12:09 PM UTC
46 Comments
Why out thur on the slope, they just done got them terlets what flushes with water. They's hopin' for 'lectric soon, but they sure ain't got none o' them telephonics let alone none o' them handheld jobs.
Frack Boy can't even phone it in. Hilarious.
A military qithdrawal should be based on one thing: achievment of military goals.
When Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq, he didn't care about whether we had achieved our goals, and this is the result. The "pundits" are correct.
But…but…your guy, the one that started the whole thing to begin with, you know with all the lying and bungling and such, GW Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished' years ago (although long after the "…I doubt six months…" prediction of Rummy and the Brain Trust…. "…greeted as liberators…", "…paying for itself…")
Someone remind me: What were our military goals going into Iraq?
Oh yeah.
Nailed it:
Now I see why we should listen to the Neocons again.
And this from February 2003 when Bush the Idiot was "CEO of America":
AC just can't wait to bring these champions of Stoopid back into power!
Sometimes a situation is so completely fucked up and hopeless that the withdrawal is the military goal, but I will defer to the strategic military expertise of Moderatus.
First, and most importantly, the Iraqi government wouldn't allow U.S. tropops to remain in Iraq. The presnt prime minister refused to negotiate such an agreement. There was no "quick withdrawal."
Second, we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place. There never were WMD's and Saddam Hussien, as bad as he was, was never in league with Al Queda. The l;ast thing he wanted was another group operating in Iraq that could threaten his hold on the country. The Bush administration took us into Iraq, eliminated Hussien, and thereby ignited the sectarian bloodshed we see today. For what purpose? I still don't know the answer. Hopefully, you could enlighten us. Based on your post above, you certainly presume to know what they were.
President Obama inherited this situation and now has to pick-up the pieces which won't be easy and it will take long after he is out of office to conclude.
God help me– from The Washington Times. Iraq wouldn't give our troops immunity from prosecution. Why would we expose them to foreign "justice?" So, suck it, in other words.
How about NPR : http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/23/324900017/under-attack-by-isis-iraq-agrees-to-give-u-s-troops-immunity . Come on moddy dispute these facts – you and your right wing pundits are short of facts and love to spin and lie.
Mod, You forgot Baraq said we won.
“So here’s what I want you to know, and here’s what I want all our men and women in uniform to know: Because of you, we are ending these wars in a way that will make America stronger and the world more secure. Because of you.”
Andres, I think those WMD's are somewhere near the Obamaphone. Could you check up there and let us know ?
Fox News is reporting that they're expecting to find those WMDs any day now……
Baraq? More sleaze from the lying coward, AC.
Well, he can't use the slurs that he'd like to use about the President, so he's gonna stick with the Seekrit Muzlim angle….
I don't know what you folks are talking about. President Bush the Younger DID achieve his goals. He wanted to be a War President and he wanted to show Daddy how to do Iraq right. President Bush the Elder left Hussein in power. Junior took care of that. What he didn't get was that Saddaam was "our sonofabitch" and his father knew that. He kept the religious war at bay by enforcing an "I don't care which mosque you go to you're not going to fight about it on my streets" law. George the Youner tore that apart and we have an intractable civil/religious war to show for it.
Didn't the Shrub also get Sodom Hussein's gun as a souvenir after he was captured in the spider hole?
I don't know if the Iraq war was ever about anything other than control of oil and making money. Saddam was an evil, violent dictator, just like dozens of other evil, violent dictators propped up by the USA over the last centuries. Iraq was secular before the US invaded – now it's in a constant sectarian, civil war. Osama Bin Laden plotted 9/11, but when we had him cornered in Afghanistan, we let him escape. Yes, Iraq had elections, and in theory, "our guy" won, but al-Maliki is not supported by the Iraqi people. Women are actually less free than they were before the war, in spite of all the purple fingers.
I know that the veterans who went to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan either beleived that they were doing the right thing, for freedom, for democracy, etc, or they just wanted a job in a country which wasn't generating civvie jobs. So instead, Iraq is a broken country, and so many of the well-intentioned veterans, too, are broken in mind or body.
So what did America get for 11 years of war? Who "won"?
If there is war in Iraq, it will again be about oil. This map, from Brad Plumer writing for Vox, shows the oil fields which ISIS now controls.
(oil fields in gray)
Now, when renewable energy sources are competitive with oil, when there is so much potential to not let fossil fuels rule our foreign policy again, are we going to let a group of terrorists dictate that we should waste lives and treasure all over again? Seriously, have we learned anything at all over the last 11 years?
+100
This map does not show Iraqi oil resources. The grey area is the Kurdish semi-autonomous region, not the location of Iraqi oil resources.
Trust you to nitpick that, OTD. I thought about correcting the caption to say "The oil fields ISIS has taken are in the gray area on the map" but, no edit function for comments.
However, the northern oil fields, reportedly under ISIS control or threatened by ISIS forces, are in that gray area, which you would see if you click on the link I provided, and scroll down to the more detailed map of the specific fields and lines. (below) This map from the same article shows the Taq Taq, Tawka, and Supergiant oil fields within the "gray area" of Kurdistan. ISIS is financing its activities with 10,000 barrels per day of oil stolen from these northern oil fields, Rudaw reported. The Rudaw article also referenced many other oilfields and pipelines which are not shown on the Vox map. But my understanding is that ISIS has not taken control of any of the southern oil infrastructure…yet.
You wrote, "I thought about correcting the caption to say "The oil fields ISIS are taken are in the gray area of the map…." That is incorrect as well; the gray area is the Kurdish area that is not under ISIS control, which is shown in brownish-orange.
You state that ISIS is financing its operations with oil from the Taq Taq, Tawak, and "Supergiant" oilfields. The Vox article is quite specific that ISIS does not control Taq Taq or Tawak ("it's [i.e., ISIS] not close to the big Kurdish oil fields of Tawke or Taq Taq. It is also clear from clear from the two maps that ISIS does not control the Kirkuk oil field (which stretches from the city of Kirkuk to the Northeast.
What you refer to as the "Supergiant" oilfield is not called the "Supergiant" oilfield. It is the Kirkuk oilfiled, which is a supergiant oilfield–a reference to the size of its reserves.
Given two shots at it, you have managed to misinterpret the graphs and completely misread the VOX article. Better luck next time!
I thought about correcting the caption to say "The oil fields ISIS has taken are in the gray area on the map" – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/61285/iraq-strikes-udall-tipton-back-prez-while-talk-radio-rages#sthash.Ke1MzGpF.dpuf
I thought about correcting the caption to say "The oil fields ISIS has taken are in the gray area on the map" – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/61285/iraq-strikes-udall-tipton-back-prez-while-talk-radio-rages#sthash.Ke1MzGpF.dpuf
"The oil fields ISIS has taken are in the gray area on the map – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/61285/iraq-strikes-udall-tipton-back-prez-while-talk-radio-rages#sthash.Ke1MzGpF.dpuf
Eh…don't know about why those extra cut and pastes are in there. This site could use a preview/editor function.
There's an addon on this site that, er…adds on the tagline & link. If you cut and paste from this site, either paste first into something else to edit the text or click the Source button, top left, and edit out the cruft before posting. Bloody annoying, really.
Here's the corrected version of my comment above:
You wrote, "I thought about correcting the caption to say "The oil fields ISIS has taken are in the gray area on the map …." That is incorrect as well; the gray area is the Kurdish area that is not under ISIS control, which is shown in brownish-orange.
You state that ISIS is financing its operations with oil from the Taq Taq, Tawak, and "Supergiant" oilfields. The Vox article is quite specific that ISIS does not control Taq Taq or Tawak ("it's [i.e., ISIS] not close to the big Kurdish oil fields of Tawak or Taq Taq.” It is also clear from the two maps that ISIS does not control the Kirkuk oil field (which stretches from the city of Kirkuk to the northwest).
What you refer to as the "Supergiant" oilfield is not called the "Supergiant" oilfield. It is the Kirkuk oilfield, which is a supergiant oilfield–a reference to the size of its reserves.
Given two shots at it, you have managed to misinterpret the graphs and completely misread the VOX article. Better luck next time!
@ Old Time Dem
Your style and intellectual combativeness remind me of a former poster…is that you JO?
I believe he told me once to "fuck off" after I teased him by calling him "honey" after I had made reference how he reminded me of my ex. He is definitely combative – with little sense of humor.
I usually admit my small errors as long as the big picture understanding is there. Condescend, nitpick, belittle, and willfully misinterpret my conclusions, and I ain't admitting shit.
Big picture: US is interested in who controls the oil fields in northern Iraq, aka Kurdistan. Airstrikes were initially to protect the escape route of the refugees; now, airstrikes aim to keep ISIS from gaining more control of the major oil resources.
Big picture: ISIS fundamentalists are willing to wipe out the Kurds in order to control the oil. The US will intervene to prevent the genocide, but the control of the oil is still the hidden agenda.
Big picture: ISIS is stealing oil in Kurdistan and selling it, to finance their operations and fuel their trnsport. However ISIS is doing it, they're able to pull out about 10,000 barrels of oil a day, according to Bewar Khinsi at the Kurdistan Protection Agency.
Biggest picture: We should intervene, short term, to save the Yazidis. We should not intervene long term to control the Kurdistan oil fields. We have alternatives now. Control of oil is no longer a strategic priority in foreign policy, or it shouldn't be.
Small shit (the mouse turds OTD likes to pole vault over):
Insomnia sucks.
indeed…
I have never minded sparring with combative bloggers, as that is part of the attraction, really. It is the lack of a sense of humor in some that grows very tiresome…the "If you can't take it, don't dish it out" rule is almost like Rule Number 2. Rule number 1 being the business about outing posters, of course.
By 'little' do you mean 'none'?
No, it was "piss off." It was the diary in which you claimed that the exceedingl silly claim that the Constitution required a post office instead of allowed it–a claim you eventually conceded was wrong.
OTD, once you show the slightest capability to actually read a map and interpret it, I will be happy to discuss it with you.
The two maps have to be read together. The information has to be synthesized, which I can do, but this seems to be beyond you. Imagine the maps overlaying each other, which would be great with a paper and plastic overlay, but is difficult to do online.
The Kurdish area is gray. The brown dots show cities and towns which ISIS controls, and the lighter orange ones show areas ISIS controls, according to the (1st) VOX map. All of these are geographically WITHIN the northern gray Kurdistan area, which is what I said.
The supergiant oil field is very clearly identified on the second map, as are the others. If you have some specialized knowledge contradicting the Vox article which names it as the Supergiant field, again, please do the world a favor and share your special knowledge with the article's author and the graphics specialist who created all those maps.
When you read both articles, and look at both maps, which you apparently didn't bother to do, and see how they overlap and interrelate, it is quite clear that the US interest in and protection of this area is related to control over the oil fields, (also the interest of ISIS).
You obviously didn't even bother to read the Rudaw article, which enumerated in great detail the oilfields and resources which ISIS controls or is in the process of trying to control.
I'm not saying that the humanitarian motives are not important…but ISIS was moving all over Iraq for the last two months, and the US didn't move in to help until ISIS started controlling the oil resources.
Something I learned from reading and synthesizing information. Try it sometime. It will be a nice change from supercilious snarkery.
That is three shots you’ve had at interpreting these maps. You still get it wrong, which makes your comment of “once you show the slightest capability to actually read a map and interpret it, I will be happy to discuss it with you” pretty ironic.
In your first presentation of the maps, you said “oil fields in gray,” and subsequently claimed that you meant “The oil fields ISIS has taken are in the gray area on the map.” Both of those were wrong, and now you claim something different:
“The Kurdish area is gray. The brown dots show cities and towns which ISIS controls, and the lighter orange ones show areas ISIS controls, according to the (1st) VOX map. All of these are geographically WITHIN the northern gray Kurdistan area, which is what I said.”
The first two sentences are correct. But none of the ISIS controlled cities or region are within the grey area. ISIS controlled areas bump up against the Kurdish Region, but so far the Kurds have kept ISIS at bay. That is patently obvious, so your statement that “All of these are geographically WITHIN the northern gray Kurdistan area” makes absolutely no sense. What “All” are you talking about? I Exactly what ISIS controlled area is in the Kurdish Region?
Regarding “Supergiants”: there is no oilfield called the “Supergiant.” The oilfield you are calling the "Supergiant" is one of three Iraqi “supergiant” oilfields. The one located near Kirkuk—which you call the “Supergiant”—is the Kirkuk field; the other two are East Baghdad, and the complex in the south near the Kuwait border. These are called supergiants because of the size of their reserves. You apparently looked at the legend of the map and thought the Kirkuk field was called the "Supergiant" field. It is a supergiant field, but it is not the Supergiant field; it is the Kirkuk oilfield. The designer of this map and I are completely on the same page. It is you who have made a mistake.
A further mistake—which you refuse to acknowledge—is that you misread the VOX article. You thought it said that ISIS had taken control of the Taq Taq and Tawka oilfields, which are in the Kurdish Region. You were very specific that these were the exact fields that ISIS controlled and was using to finance its offensive. But you read the article wrong—it actually said that those fields were not in ISIS’s hands—the exact words were ISIS is “not close to the big Kurdish oil fields of Tawak or Taq Taq.”
You also specifically said that ISIS controlled the Kirkuk oilfield (the one you misidentified as the “Supergiant” field). Again, that is incorrect, which anyone can tell by mentally overlaying the two maps and finding out that the field, which has its southern end anchored in Kirkuk, goes northwest alone the border of the Kurdish Region. It is not surrounded by ISIS, which is another claim you made.
BTW, I did read the Rudaw article, which identifies the “Kurdish Ayn Zala oil well in the Zumar region.” Zumar appears to be in Nineveh Province, not the Kurdish Region.
Ho hum. Not going to let you make this thread about you. Or me. I already corrected what I'm going to correct.
So do you think protecting oil resources from ISIS is sufficient rationale for American re-entry into Iraq? Let's stick to the topic of the thread.
Fume away. They say vitriol is bad for digestion, FYI.
My first comment was, in full,
"This map does not show Iraqi oil resources. The grey area is the Kurdish semi-autonomous region, not the location of Iraqi oil resources"
No judgment; no sarcasm, and no condescension on my part.
You took it from there, doubling down on your misinterpretation and throwing in a misreading of the VOX article to boot. And then you followed up with a third, very lengthy comment dripping with sarcasm and condescension.
Given that you've whiffed three times on map reading and interpretation, it probably is best that you shut the fuck up on the subject.
Back atcha, buddy.
Whatever, honey.
O peration
I raqi
L iberation, the name given by Neocons to fail from beginning foreign policy response, What's learned? a cabal speculating on oil futures, a gridlocked House that cannot pass a Highway funding bill, record export of USA oil as refined product, yet, according to tonights news, Gasoline shortages in Metro Denver of unleaded regular
We've been listening to aggressive hawks and liberal interventionists for a long time now. What good has it done us?
Do No (More) Harm
The extortion of the West, by the East, began with the creation of OPEC and was taken to an art form by the "Big 5".
Um, let's see…how much do we pay them for our sunshine and wind? Oh yeah, right…nothing.
And now they can't get rid of Maliki: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/11/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0G808J20140811?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Gardner couln't be reached for comment because he doesn't know WTF he's supposed to think or say about this.
It might distract Gardner from his mantra: Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare
Yup. Cory can't decide which of his sugar daddies to placate.
All in all, it's not too surprising that conservative pundits and news outlets seem to be dazed and confused in responding to this latest oil-soaked crisis.