Al-Douri Dead, Again

Maybe this time they really got him:

A top aide of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been killed during fighting against Sunni insurgent forces, senior Iraqi officials claimed Friday, in a potential blow to factions opposing the government in Baghdad.

But previous reports over the years about the death of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri have proven wrong. Iraqi officials said a DNA analysis of the body was planned.

Indeed, he's one of the top zombie fighters left in the deck of cards. But it certainly does look a little like him, maybe on one of his worse days.

Assuming he's finally in heaven meeting 72 virgins that look like Helen Thomas, the political class will probably decide to use him as a cudgel against Bush-- Jeb Bush.  In the twisted logic of liberal-land it works like this: had George W Bush not invaded Iraq and turned loose the dogs of AQ and other insurgents, Izzat would have never mattered. He would have been inconsequential. And all those innocent people that ISIS butchered would still be there.  Al-Douri had to fight because Bush tossed his Sunni regime out.  Therefore GW Bush created ISIL (Obama-approved acronym) so Jeb Bush is a warmonger who will create more ISILs or something.

But there's another side of the coin.  Izzat al-Douri was the one who persuaded Saddam to put "Allahu Akbar" on the Iraqi flag after the Gulf War. He was in charge of Islamizing Saddam's regime to some degree, probably to keep the Islamic Jihadists at bay during the post-war era where Saddam's power had been eroded. In doing so there was a certain embrace of the radicals, which showed itself to the very end with Douri's Naqshbandi Order having little trouble tag-teaming with the terrorists in an attempt to retake Iraq. So the question should be "where else did they tag-team"?

But of course, everyone considers that question long-answered.  And Jeb Bush probably has no desire to answer it any differently.  And he really doesn't have to if Hillary is his opponent.  But if Hillary drops out he will be forced to deal with it, one way or the other.  Will he throw big brother under the bus while embracing his foreign policy?  Wouldn't look very presidential.  

MORE  4/17/15

I confess I've always been weirdly obsessed with this guy.  Maybe it's because for such a high-level member of the old regime, nobody seems to care about him. The Bush people never made him a public target or even discussed him; the Obama people have never mentioned his name to my knowledge, despite his purported role in ISIS.  Here's another example of the weirdness.  Marie Harf at State is asked about the death report, to which she 1) coughs, 2) looks uninterested, 3) tried to quickly move on, and 4) says "I'll check" several times, which means we'll never hear about it again unless someone asks.  At the end of the clip watch her eyes--she seems to almost roll them.   Why would the administration not want to celebrate this kill?

 

With the news people are asking if he's the last remaining figure in the old most wanted "deck of cards" (he was King of Clubs).   To my knowledge one of the bigger figures is still missing--Taher Habbush, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, who might know a thing or two or three about a lot of things. 

Hard to Disagree

As much as the thought of another Bush in the White House is like anticipating a root canal, Jeb's vision of US foreign policy is pretty hard to disagree with:

“We now have a president — the first one, I believe, in the post-World War II era — that believes that America’s power is not appropriate and America’s presence is not a force for good,” Jeb Bush told a crowd of business leaders in Columbus, Ohio, this week.

“He’s wrong. With all due respect, he is just plain wrong.” “America needs to lead. America needs to stay engaged,” he added. “America’s friends need to know that we have their back over the long haul, and our enemies need to fear us a little bit.”

He's also not apologizing for thinking that way despite the polls, which is a likeable and useful trait in a president. Do not take this an endorsement, other Republicans may share it as well, and Bush will have to convince people he's not a warmonger thanks to his brother who refuses to defend himself.  But it's the correct way to think about foreign policy.  It's not just the economy, stupid.

Making some broad assumptions, it will be interesting to see how Hillary might react to such a position considering her reputation as a foreign policy hawk. It might force her to move left on the issue if there's a primary and back right in the general election.  All the more reason for the Democrats to just crown her and move forward if they can get away with it.   

Risk? What Risk?

A presumptive GOP candidate for 2016 sets his table:

Bush said immigrants capture the entrepreneurial spirit of America. “People who come here legally and illegally are the risk takers,” Bush said. “If you’re living in a rural area of Guatemala and you come, you’re a bigger risk taker than those who stay.”

There's just so much wrong with that comment. One, what other criminal activity does he consider to be 'risk-taking' and worthy?  Two, he grouped both legal and illegal activity in the same breath.  Does he consider people who follow the law no different than those who can't be bothered?  Three, what risk is there for illegals coming into the country anymore?  If they get past the Border Patrol and settle somewhere they immediately become knighted saints with absolute moral authority, often held in higher esteem than tax-paying law-abiding citizens who suggest they be deported for breaking the law. 

As to education reform:

Aside from immigration, Bush’s advocacy for Common Core State Standards has earned him enmity on the right.

Bush isn't the only Republican jumping on Common Core, many Republicans have embraced it. One of them is the Republican governor of Tennessee. Ads have been running on local radio in the state pushing CC. Why? Do the various characters involved in the development of the program not bother these guys? Or have they been convinced otherwise?  Or something else?  Someone should ask them. 

And here's a potential question-- why do we need new national standards when the US education system has a long history of training some of the most brilliant minds in history that gave rise to a great nation?  Sounds like the problem is more with teachers and parents, not inadequate national standards.