“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Monday, April 29, 2013

Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al Arabiya, wrote on April 14 that Maliki was another Saddam, except for one key detail: Iran's support. "Maliki is practically another Saddam. But Maliki surpasses Saddam because he is protected by Iran and he has double the funds of Saddam, who was besieged during most of his years in power.”


Iraqi Prime Minister Is Looking More And More Like A Dictator


Apr. 28, 2013, 4:50 PM 

There used to be a joke Iraqis told about television: There are only four channels, and Saddam is on every one of them.

Now Saddam's long dead, it's a decade later, and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has openly censored the media.

It's just one in a long line of steps Maliki has taken to consolidate power.
Al Jazeera and nine other stations have lost their licenses to broadcast in Iraq. The Maliki government indicates the recent spate in sectarian violence, and the media's perceived stoking of such violence, as their reason for revoking the licenses.

Al Jazeera responded with astonishment, arguing that they cover "all sides" of every story.

"We urge the authorities to uphold freedom for the media to report the important stories taking place in Iraq," the statement said.

Maliki's aggressive political steps date back to his initial move toward power in 2006. He's staffed the higher positions of government with Shia loyalists, and distanced his government from Sunni and Kurdish leaders.

He's also created "extra-constitutional security bodies" — so-called by Marissa Meyer at the Institute for the Study of War — bodies designed to give him a direct chain of command over security forces, a command that conveniently side-steps the Ministries of Defence and Interior.

Such consolidations allowed him to take an unprecedented move: what Maliki claims was an arrest, but what many call an assassination attempt on Iraq's former finance minister. Luckily, and predictably, Rafi Issawi was under the protection of the powerful Abu Risha clan and avoided his fate, whatever it might have been.
Aside from being a long-time head of state, Issawi was a relatively new federal government's olive-branch symbol to the Sunni minority. Issawi is part of that minority — notably, the ruling class beneath Saddam's Iraq. Placement of religious leaders in state positions is common practice in the Middle East, and a sign of solidarity in religiously driven culture.

Issawi's protectors, The Risha Clan, arose during the Sunni Awakening, largely credited with turning the tide of war in Iraq. 

In the end, Risha smelled the attempt coming and fled.

His resignation and subsequent criticisms just days before the attempt could have been that proverbial straw to Maliki's camel. During an interview with a local news affiliate in Ramadi:
"Unfair representation of Iraq’s diverse groups in ministries, government institutions and state security, the issue of security, detention policies ... the fact that the most sensitive state institutions are today administered by proxy, the monopolization of all state security agencies (which are becoming more and more sectarian in nature), and the blatant persecution of the Sunni Arab community in the security sectors and elsewhere, such as in higher education."
Several bombings have occurred in the last month, including the bloodiest day since last autumn, when 62 died on the anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq. Maliki says the bombings are pushing the country toward all-out civil war, and he may be right.

On the other hand, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al Arabiya, wrote on April 14 that Maliki was another Saddam, except for one key detail: Iran's support.

"Maliki is practically another Saddam. But Maliki surpasses Saddam because he is protected by Iran and he has double the funds of Saddam, who was besieged during most of his years in power," Al-Rashed wrote.

A recent LA Times article about Maliki used the headline, "The Great Divider."
The first line: "Iraq is on its way to dissolution, and the United States is doing nothing to stop it.

144 comments:

  1. I am sure that we could work our military magic and geo-political skill sets in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, all at the same time of course.

    We did such an outstanding job in Iraq and our daily results in Afghanistan are simply magnificent.

    We have the money and enough fresh US troops that are still relatively healthy and ready to go. Our economy is robust.

    Predictions by the always reliable Middle East experts demand our action. Past encouragement by these same experts has been impeccable.

    After careful analysis we should support the thinkers and strategists in the US Congress to give their auto erotic support to any and all military actions.

    This is a two minute OOrah and a guaranteed slam dunk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should have divided Iraq into three parts like Teresita, Joe Biden, I, and Hugh Fitzgerald, from whom I got my idea, advised.

      Delete
    2. We should have divided a foreign country into parts. It would be interesting to have your esteemed committee sit down at a table and be given a blank map of Iraq and asked to draw the areas that you deemed were in need of dividing. A demonstration of your expertise.

      Delete
    3. Churchill did it, nothin' to it.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. .

      Occupied people? Well, they should be used to it by now as it's been going on for centuries like many other populations in that area, including those, until recent times, of Jordon and Palestine.

      Rome, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mamalukes, Ottoman. It's an exciting place.

      .

      Delete
  2. WSJ April 28, 2013, 7:39 p.m. ET
    U.S. Weighs Syria Response
    As Lawmakers Urge Action, White House Eyes Risks From Assad’s Air Defenses


    WASHINGTON—Lawmakers pressed the Obama administration to intervene in Syria's civil war, citing the regime's alleged chemical-weapons use, as the White House weighed its response against a sobering fact: Damascus has developed a world class air-defense system.

    That system, built, installed and maintained—largely in secret—by Russia's military complex, presents a formidable deterrent as the White House draws up options for responding to a U.S. intelligence report released last week concluding that Damascus likely used chemical weapons on the battlefield.

    Leading Democratic and Republican lawmakers on Sunday said they didn't believe the U.S. should send American troops into Syria. They and the Obama administration are wary about U.S. involvement in another Middle East conflict after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But some called for a no-fly zone and more humanitarian aid.

    Previously undisclosed details about Syria's antiaircraft systems outline the evolution of one of the most advanced and concentrated barriers on the planet, developed to ward off U.S. and Israeli warplanes, say U.S. intelligence and defense officials. The Obama administration only sporadically intervened to try to stop its construction, the officials say.

    In White House meetings about military options for Syria, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, frequently singles out Mr. Assad's air-defense prowess as the single biggest obstacle to U.S. intervention, according to current and former officials who participated in the briefings.

    More

    U.S. Analysis of Syria's Russian-Made Air Defenses
    Advocates of military action believe the threat posed by Syria's defenses is overstated by the Obama administration, in part to justify not taking action. Some have cited Israel's successful bombing in January that targeted a suspected SA-17 antiaircraft missile shipment.

    However, as Pentagon officials later learned, the Israeli planes never entered Syrian airspace.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I repeat the last line:
    Advocates of military action believe the threat posed by Syria's defenses is overstated by the Obama administration, in part to justify not taking action. Some have cited Israel's successful bombing in January that targeted a suspected SA-17 antiaircraft missile shipment.

    However, as Pentagon officials later learned, the Israeli planes never entered Syrian airspace.



    Instead, the Israeli warplanes were flying over Lebanon when they executed what is called a "lofting" maneuver—using a sudden burst of speed and altitude to catapult a bomb across the border to the target about 10 miles inside Syria, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. account of the Israeli operation.

    Israeli officials said the decision was made to bomb from the relative safety of Lebanese airspace for diplomatic as well as security reasons. The Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

    Gen. Dempsey has told the White House that stealth aircraft and ship-based, precision-guided missiles could destroy many Syrian air-defense sites relatively quickly. But he has warned policy makers that mobile launchers would be harder to find and destroy and that their location among population centers likely would mean civilian casualties.

    Officials believe any operation would also be costly and dangerous to U.S. personnel.

    On Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), a sharp critic of Mr. Obama's Syria policy, didn't discuss those risks in arguing that the U.S. should support a no-fly zone with unmanned aircraft to protect civilians and rebels. Other lawmakers called for more humanitarian aid.

    "We can get in and out. That's not the issue," said a senior U.S. official. "The issue is can you take out the entire air defense system and keep it down. That's just completely a different kettle of fish."

    U.S. officials were aware of Russia's involvement and tracked many of the upgraded systems during a period of rapid modernization after a 2007 Israeli airstrike on a suspected Syrian nuclear site. But the Americans rarely interfered, viewing Iran as the region's larger threat and, under the Obama administration, initially pursuing improved ties with both Russia and Syria.

    Obama administration officials say they raised their concerns with Moscow in their meetings even if they knew Russia was unlikely to respond.

    Now, with evidence mounting that the Syrian regime has used at least small amounts of chemical weapons against opponents of President Bashar al-Assad, the consequences of policy choices from a prior decade may limit the ability of the U.S. and its allies to respond today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. President Barack Obama has set the use of chemical weapons as a “red line” that could trigger U.S. military involvement. Reluctant to intervene, however, the White House has called for a deeper international investigation into evidence pointing to the likelihood that Syrian forces have gassed their opponents.

    "We knew the Syrians were bolstering their air defense systems. We saw this as a Syrian effort to deter Israeli incursions," said one of the senior U.S. officials who helped oversee those efforts during Mr. Obama's first term. "But we [the U.S.] would pay attention to it sporadically. We had to pick and choose. The main focus was Iran."

    U.S. officials believe Russia's goal in helping Mr. Assad was to deter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from intervening in Syria as the alliance did in Libya in 2011 and in Serbia in 1998, operations Moscow opposed.

    U.S. officials believe Russian technicians are on hand with many of the Syrian air-defense units, providing technical assistance. The Russians, many employees of Russian defense contractors, repair broken equipment with components imported from Russia, the officials said.

    Officials at the Russian embassy in Washington said they don't discuss military and technical cooperation with other countries. But Moscow has denied any special relationship with Mr. Assad, arguing that Russia is supporting the principle of nonintervention.

    The first air-defense deals between Russia and Syria date back decades. But Russia in recent years has stepped up shipments to modernize Syria's targeting systems and make the air defenses mobile, and therefore much more difficult for Israel—and the U.S.—to overcome.

    The U.S. detected Mr. Assad was seeking major air defense expansions after a series of foreign incursions, including the 2007 Israeli bombing of a suspected nuclear site at al Kibar; the February 2008 assassination in Damascus of Imad Mugniyah, a high-ranking Hezbollah military commander; and a September 2008 car bombing that U.S. officials say targeted a Syrian military intelligence facility.

    Embarrassed by Israel's ease of access to his country, Mr. Assad plunged into an effort to procure batteries of Russian interceptors and early warning systems. He arrayed them in overlapping concentric circles in and around population centers.

    According to an internal U.S. intelligence assessment, in August 2008, Russia began shipping SA-22 Pantsir-S1 units to Syria. The system, a combination surface-to-air missile and 30 mm antiaircraft gun, has a digital targeting system and is mounted on a combat vehicle, making it easy to move. Today, Syria has 36 of the vehicles, according to the U.S. assessment.

    In 2009, the Russians started upgrading Syria's outdated analog SA-3 surface-to-air missile systems, turning them into the SA-26 Pechora-2M system, which is mobile and digital, equipped with missiles with an operational range of 17 miles.

    The U.S. is particularly worried about another modernized system provided by Moscow—the SA-5. With an operational range of 175 miles, SA-5 missiles could take out U.S. planes flying from Cyprus, a key NATO base that was used during Libya operations and would likely be vital in any Syrian operation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Since March 2011, when the rebellion against Mr. Assad started, Russia has continued to support the air-defense system, providing key components and replacement parts, and sending technicians to test it, U.S. officials say.

    Officials suspect one of the Pechoras shot down a Turkish reconnaissance plane last June, an incident closely studied by the U.S. and cited as evidence the system hasn't been degraded by the conflict.

    Last November, U.S. intelligence agencies learned that a flight from Russia to Syria was carrying components for the SA-17 Grizzly antiaircraft system, according to U.S. officials, who say resupply flights continue.

    The Pentagon decided it could do little to stop the shipments, reflecting Washington's shifting views of Damascus and a lack of U.S. influence with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "A major focus has been on offensive weapons, not defensive," a senior Obama administration said of the U.S.'s approach under Mr. Obama toward arms transfers to Syria.

    Defense officials worried that raising U.S.-Russian tensions over Syria could prompt Moscow to retaliate by making it harder for the U.S. to use needed air and ground routes though Russian territory to withdraw military supplies from Afghanistan.

    Pentagon officials concluded it wasn't realistic to try to block all sales of air-defense systems. Instead, they decided to target what officials called "game changers"—the systems that most threaten Israel and the U.S.

    —Jay Solomon contributed to this article.
    Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com and Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. Read this carefully:

    Instead, the Israeli warplanes were flying over Lebanon when they executed what is called a "lofting" maneuver—using a sudden burst of speed and altitude to catapult a bomb across the border to the target about 10 miles inside Syria, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. account of the Israeli operation.

    Israeli officials said the decision was made to bomb from the relative safety of Lebanese airspace for diplomatic as well as security reasons. The Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

    Gen. Dempsey has told the White House that stealth aircraft and ship-based, precision-guided missiles could destroy many Syrian air-defense sites relatively quickly. But he has warned policy makers that mobile launchers would be harder to find and destroy and that their location among population centers likely would mean civilian casualties.

    Officials believe any operation would also be costly and dangerous to U.S. personnel.


    Does anyone in their right mind think that the Iranian air defenses will be less robust and more exposed than the Syrian?

    Israel, if she attacks Iran will not be lofting anything into Iran, except of course the US Air Force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  7. Where are all our famous dot connectors?

    We have a front row seat to what could be a dramatic and monumental calamity. The cheerleaders and droids in the US Congress have permitted the US military to become a drone, remotely controlled by events, disinformation, dire predictions and threats from a foreign capital:

    4/17/2013, 4:15 AM

    The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted on Tuesday a resolution which stipulates that the U.S. will assist Israel if it is forced to take action against Iran.

    The resolution, Senate Resolution 65, was introduced last month by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and was co-sponsored by 15 Senators, including Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Meaningless, unless the House duplicates the insanity.

      .

      Delete
  8. U.S. will assist Israel if it is forced to take action against Iran.

    Who makes that decision in Israel? How many Americans elected this person or committee from Israel that can determine when the US goes to war?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  9. It gets worse:

    A statement issued by AIPAC following the vote said, “The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent a very clear and enormously important message of solidarity with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat—which endangers American, Israeli, and international security. AIPAC urges the full Senate to act expeditiously to adopt the resolution.”

    On Tuesday, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said that “the regime in Tehran does not see the western world as determined to stop the nuclear project, so it allows itself to continue with its plans.

    “Only putting the Iranian regime before the dilemma of ‘bomb, or survival’ will lead to the end of the project,” he said.

    “The world must take the lead in the standoff with Iran, but Israel must prepare for the possibility that it will need to protect itself alone,” he added.

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also referred to the Iranian nuclear threat on Tuesday, comparing it to the recent behavior of North Korea. He made the comments during a reception for foreign diplomats.

    "We have recently seen the results of a wild regime that possesses nuclear weapons,” he said. “We have also seen that heavy sanctions are not always effective against a sufficiently determined regime.

    “Therefore, we have an obligation to ensure that this will not happen again. If Iran achieves nuclear weapons, this will change the world. When I said this in the past, many listened and agreed, but now it is possible to agree from an additional perspective, and I think that all governments must do everything possible in order to ensure that this danger is not realized,” said Netanyahu.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make it sound as if AIPAC is the United States Senate.

      It is not.

      Closer to the truth would be to assert that CAIR is the White House.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The Arabists do not get an automatic concordance to wage war with US troops and assets from any Arab country. In fact, other than Israel, there is no country on the planet that controls the extra-constitutional privilege to the turnpike to US war paths.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  10. Would we give this power to politicians from Peru, Latvia, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Spain or Canada?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's time to ask, what would you do if you were responsible for the safety and future of Israel?

    Remember, one or two nuclear bombs and you and your country are finished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not care about Israeli security. My allegiance is to US security. Israel has 250 nuclear weapons. Israel has received more military charity from the US than any other country on the planet. The present government in Israel is in power because of the voting habits of Russian immigrants in Israel. How did the fate of the USA fall into the hands of the political will of Russian immigrant in a very small Middle Eastern theocracy?

      You approve of this?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I think US security and Israel's security are interlocked. With Europe too. Great Satin, and Little Satan, and...what do they call Europe? I don't know but I have heard the crowds and mullahs yelling Death to France, Death to England!

      I think it is absolutely shameful to consider cutting them loose, to abandon them. Of all the countries of the world, a culture that hes influenced our culture so much, a small country with a people who have suffered so much, thankfully not at our hands, but Europe, the land of most of our ancestors, a talented people who have contributed so much to the world, to abandon them I think would be absolutely shameful.

      Delete
    4. America is taken over by shameless peoples.

      They support and fund the moslem brotherhood, promote abortion as birth control, teach dependency on government.

      This is Amerika 2013

      It aint your father's America

      Delete
    5. Israel is of no assistance to the US.

      Where were they in Gulf War I?
      In Gulf War II?

      Hiding under their beds, that's where.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  12. and worse than that:

    This is not hypothetical. The wheels are coming off the wagon. This is not a conspiracy theory. It states that U.S. policy is to halt Iranian nuclear ambitions. Senate Resolution 65 gained the support of 70 of the 100 senators.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Senators do seem concerned.

      Most of their constituents are concerned as well.

      g'nite

      Delete
    2. Their constituents concerned about feckless government and further useless loss of US lives, let alone more borrowed money pissed away in the sandbox.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is your bony finger!

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. At least we do not think Hitler was right, while hating our fathers.

      Must suck to be you.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. That is idiotic, General Bunk.

      Why do you say such things?

      All you do is make a nasty fool of yourself.

      Delete
  14. From the rebels’ point of view, the best use of chemical weapons would be to increase the level of USA involvement in the conflict.

    A separate issue is the possibility that outside interests might ‘seed’ some chemical weapons within Syria, so that they can be ‘located’, and used to pressure the USA into deeper involvement in the region. Would the USA trust eg, Israel not to do this?

    Recall that in March 23, 2010, Britain expelled an Israeli diplomat to rebuke the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for fraudulent use of a dozen fake British passports in the assassination of a Hamas official in a Dubai hotel earlier that year.

    David Miliband, British foreign secretary, said there were “compelling reasons” suggesting that Israel was behind the misuse of the British passports and called Israel’s actions “intolerable.”

    No wonder Obama is cautious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Not so amazing is that the so called Chemical weapons Intelligence is coming from the Netanyahu gang and the disgusting part is that this drive for intervention has nothing to do with helping Syria and everything to do with serving the interests of lobbyists - either of our Defense Contractors or of “our strongest ally in the region”.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. The so called Chemical weapons Intelligence is NOT coming from only 'the Netanyahu gang' but from France, England and the US too. The Intelligence is based mostly on the same sets of evidence, the same conclusions being reached.

      You are out in space somewhere, Jenny.

      I've come to the conclusion we shouldn't act on it though. We would be after all aiding al-Qaeda and the MB. If we do something we should divide the country up. That conceivably could be of help to everyone in the long term. I can't think of anything else that might do so.

      Delete
    5. Garbage in, garbage out.

      They are all feeding from the same dump.

      Delete
  15. Today’s Jerusalem Post

    Israel has clear evidence of Syrian President Bashar Assad's army using chemical weapons against rebels, a senior diplomatic source said Monday.

    The official said the information is known to all intelligence agency, and that there is no doubt the Assad regime had used weapons of mass destruction against opposition forces fighting to topple him.

    Israel should be more concerned with the possibility of the chemical weapons leaking to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups in Lebanon, the official said.

    He also estimated the civil war is a long-term conflict and will not be resolved quickly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Dude,

      The Holocaust was no big deal.

      Get over it!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  16. Stay the hell out of Syria. Let them kill each other. It’s none of our concern and not worth the life of any Americans. The GOP never met a war opportunity they didn't want to take with someone else doing the fighting!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Lets You and Him Fight"

    Has always been my first option.

    ...and I'm sticking to it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Do the Joos Compel the Pali parents to teach their kids to hate the Great Satan and don an explosive Jock Strap, or was it inbred (so to speak) in the Pali's and their (non-gay) boy-pals and their sexual desires and predilections for 13 year old boys?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gaza is a part of Israel. Conquered and never liberated.

      What they teach in the schools, there, an Israeli issue.

      Of no more concern to the US than the school curriculum in Mexico.
      Of much less concern, really.

      Delete
    2. That after forty years the Israeli cannot control Gaza, a part of Israel, gives lie to their claim of both military and political solidarity.

      Their country is in the midst of a civil war. Mortor attacks and air strikes continue.

      Someone should intervene.
      The UN created Israel, and put those folk on this path, perhaps a Peacekeeping force, or a "No Fly Zone would be appropriate.

      The UN certainly has the moral authority to step in.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. An concerned Israeli authority is reported to have said ...

      ... the civil war is a long-term conflict and will not be resolved quickly.

      Delete
    5. Gaza is conquered ground. Which the Israeli control, lock stock and barrel.

      The Israeli control the port and they control the air space.
      They control power and water.

      Gaza is Israel, the Gazians are born and bred Israeli
      That the Israeli government denys it, proof of the Jim Crow policies they follow.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Just because some folks recongnize the Free Syian Army as the legitimate government of Syria, does not mean that they are, or that there is no civil war raging in Syria.
      Same is true of Israel, the civil war rages on.

      International recognition of the rebels does not end the war.
      Nor mean that the rebels have won, or that Gaza is still not a part of Israel.

      One more air strike, one more WMD loosed on the rebels in Gaza and the International community will have to act.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. The Israeli do claim control of Gaza, that they do so poorly, that the rockets fly, proof of the raging civil war, in Israel.

      Delete
    10. desert ratMon Apr 29, 10:10:00 AM EDT
      Just because some folks recongnize the Free Syian Army as the legitimate government of Syria, does not mean that they are, or that there is no civil war raging in Syria.
      Same is true of Israel, the civil war rages on.

      International recognition of the rebels does not end the war.
      Nor mean that the rebels have won, or that Gaza is still not a part of Israel.

      One more air strike, one more WMD loosed on the rebels in Gaza and the International community will have to act.




      getting extreme now Herr Rodent? Making WMD claims now?

      You get more desperate by the hour Herr Rodent.

      Your arguments get further and further from reality.

      Take your meds Herr Rodent, take your meds.

      Delete
    11. desert ratMon Apr 29, 10:12:00 AM EDT
      The Israeli do claim control of Gaza, that they do so poorly, that the rockets fly, proof of the raging civil war, in Israel.


      SO now Rat is claiming Gaza is Israel's and it's a civil war.

      What drugs are you on? Really?

      Delete
    12. Maybe if Rat is correct and Gaza is conquered Israel should ship those pesky Gazans to AZ? Just ship them to Mexico and point them to the lands that Rat occupies?

      Delete
    13. That's a great idea. Israel needs to start deporting Gazans to mexico with maps of Rat's home.

      Now that's a peace plan I can support.

      Delete
    14. Gaza was never part of Israel. They occupied it, somewhat, after a war. The moment they left it was turned into a rocket launching pad against them.

      General Archie 'Rat' Bunker, Military Expert, is wrong.

      But it would be a great place for Bunk to vacation. He could launch a few rockets into Israel himself. And be praised for it by the locals.

      Delete
    15. Not a bad plan, WiO, not a bad plan at all, I must say.

      Delete
    16. Quirk might be able to provide the coordinates of Bunk's home.

      Delete
    17. Of course Gaza was part of Joshua's Israel.

      It is fully part of Israel, as is the West Bank of the Jordanian River.
      All those residents, Israeli, too.

      But they are denied their voting rights, their marriage rights, their right to free travel, all based upon religious prejudice and Jim Crow type laws.

      So, civil war rages, WMDs are employed by the Israeli government, against the rebels.
      Th whole world watches.

      As in Syria, arms are supplied to the rebels, by regional powers intent upon turmoil.

      Delete
    18. Of course Gaza was part of Joshua's Israel.

      Ah! Then Israel should retake Gaza, and kick all the muslims out, under your theory that the land goes to the earliest claimant. And they should take all the West Bank too.

      And Arizona should go back to the Apache, the Navajo and the Hopi, and you should get the hell of there, squatter.

      Delete
    19. Bunk might not like the Hopi getting a real grip in Arizona though, considering some of their mythological motifs are remarking similar to some Hebrew motifs.

      Delete
    20. desert ratMon Apr 29, 10:58:00 AM EDT
      It is fully part of Israel, as is the West Bank of the Jordanian River.
      All those residents, Israeli, too.
      But they are denied their voting rights, their marriage rights, their right to free travel, all based upon religious prejudice and Jim Crow type laws.



      So rat's rants about israel ILLEGaLLy blocking Gaza goes out the window.

      Delete
    21. .


      Quirk might be able to provide the coordinates of Bunk's home.

      Over the last couple days, you seem to have a bug up your ass about something, offering up cryptic comments that I suspect few here understand.

      Why don't you come out and say directly what is the point you are trying to make?

      .

      Delete
    22. That you are Rat's butt buddy to use Deuce's verbiage?

      Delete
    23. .

      Thanks Wio, but I'll wait Bob to get back to me. Your comments usually tend to be a little short on analysis and I wouldn't want to acccuse Bob of something silly on the words of another.

      .

      Delete
  19. Let's recap...

    desert rat
    Gaza is Israel, the Gazians are born and bred Israeli

    Hitler was a Jew

    Those boston bombs were homemade and meaningless




    Yet that is the EB's 2nd in command. Herr Rodent

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That about covers it.

      That is what General Bunk has written.

      Delete
  20. Here is one of those wicked Russian Jewish immigrants to Israel -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Sharansky

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, anon boobie had the solution.

    The UN can just split Israel up. Or the US can, like he thinks should be done in Iraq.

    End all these Middle Eastern civil wars, just redraw the maps.

    Q, doug and I could draw the lines.

    Or, the South Africans, Argentinians and Mexicans can each send a representative, they'll be tasked with the new cartography.

    Split up Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, an infinitum.

    Maybe give Texas its independence, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. California, fer sur.

      Restore the King to Hawaii, too

      Delete
    2. I'd trust Doug to draw the lines. And Sam and Gag and WiO. Never would trust you or Quirk on anything ever.

      If you include Arizona going to Mexico, I might support your idea.

      Hawaii voted to join the US, so that is off the table.

      Why should Israel be split up though? They are not killing each other, and are unlikely to do so anytime soon. They don't seem to even have all that much problem with the local Israel born muslims, who had the great good fortune to be born inside Israel and are the luckiest arabs in the entire middle east.

      Delete
    3. Hey Bob,

      Why should we take anything you say seriously when you can't even remember your login and password to Google? I try to read what you write and my head spins with incredulity at the simple-mindedness of it. Really, have the US split Iraq up into different countries and, what, enforce the governance of those 3 countries? Look how well that idea has worked in the past in the Middle East. Lordy!

      Delete
    4. Ash, I don't care if you even read me. I went anon because three or four times over the past three or fours years someone was periodically posting in my name.

      If you request me to go back to my noble name, I will, but you might not be reading me sometimes, realizing that imitation is the highest form of flattery.

      Delete
    5. Of course they are killing each other, in the past 24 hous the battles rage.

      Jerusalem Post-13 hours ago
      Air strike successfully hits Gaza terror, weapons units according to ... Palestinian man inspects the damage left by an IAF missile strike in Gaza.


      The Israeli are using WMD, as defined by US, within their "Zones of Control".
      Just because they have created a few apartheid style "Homeland Ghettos" within Israel does not mean those ghettos are not a part of Greater Israel.

      Delete
    6. The General can't recall when Sharon pulled out of Gaza, the Jews leaving only the working green houses and some other infrastructure behind as a goodwill gesture, which the moslems promptly trashed.

      If Israel 'controlled' Gaza, I doubt missiles would be launched at Israel from there.

      The General is just being silly, and likes the attention it draws him.

      He couldn't possibly believe what he writes, could he?

      Delete
    7. Civil War simmers in Israel.

      Defensive walls are being erected, returning to an era of walled cities and sentries at the gates.

      The US government has already called for splitting Israel.
      Why do you object?

      Why would it be good for peace and security in Iraq, but bad for peace and security in Israel?

      Delete
    8. I am tired of reading your non sense. Besides, I have to go mow a lawn, and many other things today.

      g'day

      Delete
    9. Why should the US refrain from force, to implement the Two State Solution?

      You advocate for use of US force in other civil wars

      Why not a "No Fly Zone" over Greater Israel?
      Think of the lives we could save.

      We have to do something, the negotiations have proven fruitless.
      We've given those negotiators over thirty years. It is time to act!

      Delete
    10. it's Rat's single note of the day...

      Like Hitler was a jew rant, and jewish abortions rant, and of course homemade bomb rant, this rant is his single minded purpose today

      "gaza is israel"

      Yep you cant argue with Archie Bunker.

      Delete
  22. Israel Says It’s Not Seeking U.S. Intervention in Syria, Despite Chemical Arms
    By ETHAN BRONNER
    Published: April 28, 2013

    A senior Israeli official said Sunday that Israel was not urging the United States to take military action in Syria, despite intelligence assessments asserting that the government of President Bashar al-Assad recently used chemical weapons in the civil war gripping its country.


    Yuval Steinitz says Israel has “never asked,” nor encouraged, America to take any military action in Syria.
    Multimedia
    U.S. Suspects Chemical Weapons in Syria


    The official, Yuval Steinitz, the minister of strategic and intelligence affairs and international relations, also said that his government saw no comparison between American policy toward Syria and the Obama administration’s announced intention to stop Iran from gaining nuclear capability.

    “We never asked, nor did we encourage, the United States to take military action in Syria,” Mr. Steinitz said at a conference in New York sponsored by The Jerusalem Post. “And we are not making any comparison or linkage with Iran, which is a completely different matter.”


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/world/middleeast/israel-says-its-not-asking-us-to-intervene-in-syria.html?_r=0


    The Israeli Ambassador to the United States, an impressive guy, said the same thing on Fox News Sunday just yesterday. He said their concern was if the chemical weapons got into Lebanon. That seemed to be the 'red line' for them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. shhh dont tell the Rat pack that....

    They think Israel just wants all out US war everywhere in the world

    ReplyDelete
  24. .

    Lordy. Lordy. I see the Harry Potter of Idaho is back to his fixation on splitting up the world into smaller subdivisions, no doubt a holdover from his attempts at land development. Wave the wand, throw around the fairy dust, and poof, order and reconciliation are restored to troubled lands. Iraq, Libya, Syria and with each ad the assurance, "I'm Joe Biden and I approve this message". It all sounds so simple (as one would expect coming from Farmer Bob).

    Rather than pressure cookers, we should all be investing in maps, under Bob a real growth industry.

    Of course, Bob is a 'big picture' kind of guy and can't be bothered by petty details, like those mentioned below. Let's take Iraq for example, since it was the first country where he chose to expound on his theory. The other countries mentioned would follow the same pattern to various degrees. We need to ask,

    1. What right does the U.S. have to interefere with the internal workings of another country? Is it because we are so righteous and our intentions necessarily good? Is our role that of benevolent dictator such that we necessarily have to tell these people what is good for them? Is this part of the white man's burden? And what if these benighted peoples say, "Naw, we'd rather not"? Do we force it on them?

    But perhaps this is overthinking it a bit and thinking is hard. In Bob's world, to say it is to do it. So let it be written, so let it be done.

    2. We have to ask though, haven't we done enough for these poor benighted peoples already? We came into the country to punish them for WMD's they didn't have. Then we changed our story to we were after Saddam and regime change. In achieving that goal, we killed hundreds of thousands, more than Saddam could accomplish in his wildest wet-dreams. When that got messy we justified it on the basis that we brought democracy (don't laugh) to the country. However, now we want to remove the democracy and divide the country along sectarian lines. Right. Sounds brillaint.

    3. Of course, there is also the issue that in order to divide the country as planned it would require the mass migration of various populations, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd in order to prevent sectarian slaughter in the new areas. Our initial invasion resulted in 2 million refugees, and since the surge and the establishment of the democratic government, there are estimates that up to 2 million more have been displaced. Evidently, the rationale for dividing the country is that hey, they are already used to it by now. And resultant deaths, mere bug splats.

    4. Then there is the issue of the division of resources, primarily oil reserves, that are scattered throughout the country. Who gets to draw the maps. This issue alone will likely lead to regional conflct to go along with the continuing sectarian fighting, and since the Saudis will likely help the Sunnis, Iran will help the Shia, and Kurdish allies from Syria, Turkey, and Iran will likely help the Kurds, the possibility of cilvil war is enhanced, and from that no one can rule out it spreading to a regional conflict.

    5. And the rationale when the plan turns to disaster and eventually goes to hell, "Well we did our part, if they can't get it right after all the help we have given them they deserve what they get".

    Pure genius.

    And off-screen we hear, "My name is Joe Biden and I approve this message."

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dad handled some divorces, back when they were hard to get.

      If people can't stand one another, it never goes well.

      What, O Illuminated One, is sacred about some lines drawn by Europeans?

      Further, you have forgotten our Guiding Star: since Islam is at war with us, we should do that which weakens Islam as a whole, or an Islamic country. (Hugh Fitzgerald)

      You, Quirk, are just another Sheeple, following the herd morality, the PC craparoo.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. .

      Being and English major, you must recognize that the first part of your response is a non-sequiter designed, I suppose, to divert from the subject at hand.

      And in the second half, you quote from the resident nitwit from JihadWatch and at the same time illustrate once again the limited attention span you are able to maintain.

      I point out the drawbacks associated with your plan to divide up the world and you either

      1. Ignore them, leaving it to someone else to work out the details. Way too much work for an Idaho guy on free t-shirt night. Or,

      2. You, like rat, Rufus, and Wio consider the people actually involved in your little geography exercise as mere 'bug splats', a few million to be sure, women and children of course, but bug splats all the same. Frankly, I would prefer a herd morality, even a PC morality, to no morality.

      But to my real point is you are an inconsequential cipher. You argue against 'not doing' anything in the ME but offer no solutions except 'divide them into parts' ignoring the vacuity of you words. Then on top of that, as an appeal to authority, you offer up Joe 'Jackhole' Biden. Beyond that your thoughts are a vacuous miasma. It's hard to tell whether you just lack the mental capacity to visualize the problems associated with your plan or, based on recent history, the unintended consequences therof, or whether you just don't give a shit about the costs, both real and opportunity, the lives, and the destruction.

      And we will likely never know. Yesterday, you demanded a show of hands asking who wanted al Queda to get their hands on Syria's chemical weapons. When I asked how do you propose we prevent it, I got your usual answer, silence.

      You waste my time onld man. You have the mental capacity of a gnat.

      .

      Delete
    4. You are onlder than I. And much less wise. Aging and a long life without much experience other than sitting in a barber shop and walking a dog hasn't increased your capacity for wisdom one bit. And you're an asshole to boot. And a dumb fuck, nasty, and egotistical, vain, smelly, ugly and fat.

      I think you are just another of your own Sheeples.

      The high point of your recreational life is to drive round and round and drink booze. And 'think'.

      And we will likely never know. Yesterday, you demanded a show of hands asking who wanted al Queda to get their hands on Syria's chemical weapons. When I asked how do you propose we prevent it, I got your usual answer, silence.

      I must have missed that. Or considered it such a dumb question I didn't reply. I can't really remember. But I don't read your stuff much anyway anymore. The answer to your question is secure the chemical weapons, of course. The best method of doing that is left the generals. The President says, "Hey, I'm the President. Secure the chemical weapons." Then the Pentagon draws up plans to secure the chemical weapons, hopefully concentrating on minimizing the loss of life. My best guess is the best method is not to bomb the sites to oblivion. That means there would be troops involved.

      Right now, we seem to aiding al-Qaeda, not hampering them.

      I am beginning to almost almost hope Assad hangs on.

      And you are the one that doesn't seem to care about human life. You don't seem to care a fig if the war in Syria goes on and on and on. You are just like those who say, "Let them kill each other to last man, woman and child."

      Admit it, you don't really care about much of anything but drinking and driving and 'thinking'.

      Delete
  25. Then we have the pesky problem with the Christians. They will need to return to their rightful home. Clearly in all of the Middle East their historic birth right has to be Bethlehem. They will be welcomed with open arms by their ancient cousins. Putting the pedal to the metal in Christian part of the beloved “Judeo-Christian” thing. Brothers in Abraham, if not Jesus, himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your analysis falls short as usual.

      There are very "few" original christians left, and if there were a group they would be the cop tics and they are living (in fear) in egypt.

      As for the modern christians? Europe would be destination once you give back the land to the indians.

      As for the arabs? Arabia is where they came from.

      But the notion that the fake nationalistic people that call themselves "palestinian" would allow one fellow cousin to move from a forced refugee camp in lebanon or syria to the west bank? Dont hold your breath

      Delete
    2. … There are very “few” original christians left, > So true, as there are very “few” original Jews left. Still, we have ample precedent to make that adjustment.

      A Christian is a follower of Christ, regardless of where they are but especially in the Middle East. The Christians pretty well destroyed the original pagan religions in Europe. The true homeland to the Christians is in the homeland of Jesus of Nazareth. Their descendants that have managed to remain in the Middle East clearly have as rightful a claim as the very recent Eastern Europeans and Russian immigrants. It is in the Bible.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. Again, NOT the Bible that Jesus used.

      Does that offend you?

      That Jesus was a JEW.

      the 1st christians are coptics and are in Egypt.

      arabs come from arabia

      and you are an occupier on another's land

      Delete
    6. No, that does not offend me and that is not what you wrote. You should you know the rules. Continue to break them and I won’t even bother to read what you post. I’ll just remove all of them.

      Delete
    7. Then we have the pesky problem with the Christians. They will need to return to their rightful home. Clearly in all of the Middle East their historic birth right has to be Bethlehem.

      Bethlehem??! It is very unlikely Jesus was born there.

      The writers took a clue from -

      "Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting....And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land....and they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword..." (Micah 5:1-6)

      But even got that screwed up, as it refers to a person, most think, and not a place.

      He was probably born in Nazareth -

      Out of all these hometown and birthplace details, the Nazareth connection seems to be the most reliable piece of evidence to historians because Matthew and Luke both report it, and they do so even though it's potentially embarrassing to Jesus. In fact, most scholars think that Nazareth is probably where Jesus was born, too, because outside the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, all four gospels presume that he's a Galilean or Nazarene (see Mark 1:9 and 6:1; John 1:45–56 and 7:41–42; Matthew 13:54, 57; Luke 4:16, 23–24). On top of that, the Bethlehem link clearly serves the purpose of painting Jesus as the promised messiah, which naturally raises historians' suspicions about the historical accuracy of the claim.

      from The Historical Jesus For Dummies

      http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/jesuss-birthplace-and-hometown.html

      Dummies.com is your friend.





      A Christian is a follower of Christ, regardless of where they are but especially in the Middle East. The Christians pretty well destroyed the original pagan religions in Europe. The true homeland to the Christians is in the homeland of Jesus of Nazareth.

      Delete

    8. A Christian is a follower of Christ, regardless of where they are but especially in the Middle East. The Christians pretty well destroyed the original pagan religions in Europe. The true homeland to the Christians is in the homeland of Jesus of Nazareth.


      Didn't mean to include that, above. An error.

      Was going to say about it that this is true -

      A Christian is a follower of Christ, regardless of where they are

      but this is not -

      The true homeland to the Christians is in the homeland of Jesus of Nazareth

      I have never read a Christian writer worth his salt that thinks place itself has anything to do with it.

      The true homeland of a Christian is usually thought to be in the sanctuary of the heart and mind, where love, not hate, abides.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    10. DOnt KNOW what I said since you deleted it.

      lol

      Your loss

      Delete
  26. Think that will be a problem? No, not from our unshakeable ally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. israel has long advocated that palestinian refugees should be settled INSIDE arab territories of the west bank.

      Since 1948 the arabs of the west bank have built literally thousands of new villages or "illegal settlements". Thanks to the billions Israel has spent on health care and education (preoslo) the birthrate and education of said palestinians have rose to some of the highest in the arab world.

      Delete
    2. quot, you've told US time and again that there is no Palestine. No Palestinians.

      You are all Israeli.

      The Homeland scam does not play in the real world.

      Delete
    3. desert ratMon Apr 29, 02:29:00 PM EDT
      quot, you've told US time and again that there is no Palestine. No Palestinians.

      You are all Israeli.

      The Homeland scam does not play in the real world.


      I have said that the nationalistic movement that calls it'sself "palestinian" is a fraud. The fact that several million folks who are nothing more than an armed gang that have created their myth doesnt stop them trying to be something.

      As it stands now there is a good question.

      Does a Nation of Palestine actually exist?

      Are there a people who want to be called palestinian?

      To say we are all Israeli? It's just nonsense.

      But that's par for your course... "Hitler was a Jew", "those are homemade rockets and are meaningless" "Murdering someone in another country aint murder if you dont get caught" ALL ratisms, All bullshit, ALL the time.

      Delete
    4. The question, quot, was whether a persons standing in Judaism was determined by following the tenets of the religion, or by blood.


      The Israeli government uses the bloodline method, not tenets of religion, to determine a person's "Jewishness".

      Haaretz Service | Aug.24, 2010

      ... Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews.

      "The findings are fascinating if you look at them in terms of the Nazi worldview, which ascribed such an extreme priority to notions of blood and race,"


      The Israeli view is that the priority, it's in the blood.

      Delete
    5. It could read ...

      "The findings are fascinating if you look at them in terms of the Israeli worldview, which ascribed such an extreme priority to notions of blood and race,"

      Delete
    6. you twist like chubby checker dancing.

      You proclaimed that Hitler was a Jew.

      You are full of shit.

      You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

      Sometimes you should think before you flush, oh I mean speak.

      But the truth? You have proven to us all that you hate Israel, Jews and Zionist among other things and that's why you are scum.

      Delete
    7. Who Is A Jew?


      Judaism:
      Who Is A Jew?
      by Rebecca Weiner*

      Who is a Jew according to Halacha (Jewish Law)?

      According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish. According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. According to the Orthodox movement, the father’s religion and whether the person practices is immaterial. No affirmation or upbringing is needed, as long as the mother was Jewish.

      Besides for differing opinions on patrilineal descent, the various streams also have different conversion practices. Conversion done under the auspices of an Orthodox rabbi, entails Jewish study, brit milah (for men), mikvah (for both men and women) and a stated commitment to follow the laws of the Torah. Conservative conversions use the same requirements as the Orthodox do; however, conversions by the Reform movement and other streams do not have the same requirements. Since the conversion practices are not uniform, many Orthodox Jews do not recognize Reform or Conservative conversions as valid and, hence, do not consider the converts Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.


      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html


      YOU could become Jewish, General Archie 'Rat' Bunker, Military Expert, and most likely be a better person for it.



      I recall back in the day Catholics tried to make their wedding partners convert to Catholicism, often insisting on it.

      In Islam, if you proclaim yourself a moslem, NO EXIT. If you give it up, you are automatically sentenced to a trip to THE OTHER WORLD


      I think this simply horrid.

      I think all these issues a little silly, myself, but that's just me.

      Delete
    8. The little traps, he falls into each one.

      Then he says something so vile, so despicable, about his father and Hitler ... well ...

      I wouldn't even quote it verbatim. Less it be taken out of context.

      Suffice it to say quot admires hitler more than he does his own father.
      Thinks we should proclaim his epiphany on the mast head of the blog.

      I do believe the idea was found to be so offensive that it may have been removed.

      Lest we forget.

      Delete
    9. desert ratMon Apr 29, 07:01:00 PM EDT
      The little traps, he falls into each one.
      Then he says something so vile, so despicable, about his father and Hitler ... well ...

      -----------------------
      the quote was, and you know it. "Hitler was right and my dad was wrong"

      This was directed at this blog and it's title and Deuce's father. But you know that, so you keep distorting what was said.

      The point was that this blog allow people like you to express vile antisemitic anti jewish and anti israel slander on a regular basis.

      No traps, just responses to your specious and slanderous statements.


      But your admitting you slander Jews, Israel and zionism simply to get a rise out of me speaks volumes of your character, or lack there of.


      Delete
    10. Now Deuce go ahead and delete my statements.

      but delete Rat's as well as he now admits to using slander and lies about Jews, Israel and Zionism simply to get a response.

      That is what makes this place stink like 4 day old cat piss....

      Delete
    11. Lies and slander, there is no admission of either.

      Only an admission that your responses are so patterned, that they are easy to predict and entertaining to watch.

      Hitler was part Jew, the DNA does not lie.
      Just how Jewish he was, no one would willingly explain or define.

      But he has the blood.
      And being Jewish does not require following the tenets of the religion, which is passingly strange from my perspective.

      Delete
    12. But Hitler had the Jewish DNA markers in the blood flowing in his veins.

      If bloodlines are what matter.

      Delete
    13. you lie like a rug the saying goes...

      your points are crap.

      your statements about hitler are disgusting and one only hopes that someday you will be judged for your crimes against humanity

      a simple murderer you are.

      you admitted it. now you lie and deny...

      you twist and bend throw words like bombs...

      you should be on the terror watch list.

      Delete
    14. Hitler was a Jew, DNA proves it, if it is bloodlines that matter, not beliefs.
      Get over it.

      Delete
  27. {...}

    And in many recent accounts, you haven’t. That’s most obvious in the stories about insurance premiums—and the CareFirst story is a perfect example. The premium increase won’t take effect unless state regulators approve it—and, if a tough statement from the state insurance commissioner is indicative, they may not. CareFirst officials say they are simply following the advice of their actuaries, who predict the influx of previously uninsured people with medical problems, will drive up costs. But, as Sarah Kliff reported in the Washington Post, other Maryland insurers like Kaiser Permanente requested only minor rate increases. And as an editorial from the Baltimore Sun pointed out, "The point of the insurance exchange is to foster competition. ... If people don't like what CareFirst is offering, they will have a choice."

    More important, the premium isn’t actually the price most people will pay. Remember, the federal government is providing tax credits that offset part or all of the premiums—and take care of some cost-sharing. In addition . . . . .

    {...}


    Trainwreck? eh, maybe not

    ReplyDelete
  28. The U.S. Treasury Department (USGG10YR) projected it will reduce government debt this quarter for the first time in six years as tax receipts exceed forecasts and spending diminishes.

    The pay-down in net marketable debt was estimated at $35 billion in the April-June period, compared with a projection three months ago for net borrowing of $103 billion, the department said in a statement today in Washington. Treasury officials also see net borrowing of $223 billion in the quarter starting July 1. The estimates set the stage for the department’s quarterly refunding announcement on May 1, when debt issuance plans will be released.

    First Reduction since 2007

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Three months out, and they only missed it by $138 Billion!

      Take All those "projections" with a very large helping of salt.

      Delete
  29. Keeping Benghazi on the mind -

    The Obama administration has been keeping the 34 eyewitnesses to the Benghazi attacks from testifying before Congress while the State Department is preventing Benghazi whistleblowers from being represented by attorneys.

    Gee...one would think they don't want the truth to come out or something.

    With the report on Benghazi released last week that was damning in its conclusions, getting eyewitness testimony - especially about what the White House was doing while our people were dying - will be criticial to answering the question of why this cover up continues even after the election.


    April 29, 2013
    New Benghazi hearings may feature eyewitnesses to the attack
    Rick Moran

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/04/new_benghazi_hearings_may_feature_eyewitnesses_to_the_attack.html


    (Go to American Thinker for great finds)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. April 29, 2013
      New Benghazi hearings may NOT feature eyewitnesses to the attack.
      desert rat

      Just as accurate a statement.

      Delete
    2. Certainly, they might not.

      But the point is, the Congressman nearly admitted they would, but was oathed to silence, so he said he couldn't say.

      And that is why the news reports use the term 'may', you dumb shit.

      It is possible Rick Moran knows already that they will, but really can't say yet, cause he MAY be pledged to silence too, by his sources.

      Delete
  30. Pertaining to major changes, holiday it down into
    smaller manageable pieces of art. It's an opportunity for american to learn as to grow 3 ) to expand. Customers . used in clothing logos should express the style of their brand. And all at some generous price regarding $199. http://tzmpolska.org/atrium/wiki/index.php?title=U%C5%BCytkownik:DaniloUWW

    Review my blog post ... nike air max pas cher

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bank of America Corp. asked a federal judge Monday to dismiss a civil lawsuit by federal prosecutors over the quality of home loans sold by its Countrywide Financial unit to mortgage-finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the buildup to the U.S. financial crisis.

    Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have alleged that Countrywide, facing revenue shortfalls as the subprime mortgage market imploded in early 2007, eliminated checks on loan quality in a streamlining effort known as the "Hustle," while assuring Fannie and Freddie that the loans were quality investments.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jerry Seinfeld turns 58 years old today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked his show. So damn crass. My wife couldn't stand it. It almost led to fights over the flipper.

      Delete
  33. Definitely believe that which you said. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the
    web the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people think about worries
    that they plainly don't know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

    Here is my web-site ... cure for hemroid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do hemroids make one nasty, juvenile and irrational all the time?

      If so, that might explain General Bunk.

      Think you could help him?

      Delete
    2. Ernie Hemingway had hemroids.

      That is why he sometimes called himself Ernie Hemroid.

      And others called him that sometimes too, picking up on his joke.

      It was all an effort to make levity out of a painful situation.

      Delete
  34. This article is way way too long for Quirk, who has Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), or perhaps alcohol syndrome, or even early onset, or perhaps all three, but Rufus and others will surely find it interesting.

    May 2013
    What If We Never Run Out of Oil?
    New technology and a little-known energy source suggest that fossil fuels may not be finite. This would be a miracle—and a nightmare.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/?single_page=true

    In the 1970s, geologists discovered crystalline natural gas—methane hydrate, in the jargon—beneath the seafloor. Stored mostly in broad, shallow layers on continental margins, methane hydrate exists in immense quantities; by some estimates, it is twice as abundant as all other fossil fuels combined. Despite its plenitude, gas hydrate was long subject to petroleum-industry skepticism. These deposits—water molecules laced into frigid cages that trap “guest molecules” of natural gas—are strikingly unlike conventional energy reserves. Ice you can set on fire! Who could take it seriously? But as petroleum prices soared, undersea-drilling technology improved, and geological surveys accumulated, interest rose around the world. The U.S. Department of Energy has been funding a methane-hydrate research program since 1982.

    There is a little exaggeration there in the use of 'finite' but the point is there is a lot, so they say, of methane hydrate around.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Simply desire to say your article is as astounding.
    The clarity in your post is just cool and i could assume you're an expert on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work.

    My web site; springbrunnen pumpe

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession
    capital to assert that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts.
    Any way I'll be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you access consistently fast.

    Also visit my blog post übersetzung kostenlos spanisch deutsch

    ReplyDelete
  37. Very good article! We are linking to this great post
    on our site. Keep up the good writing.

    Check out my blog ... virility ex

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hello, its pleasant paragraph on the topic of media print, we all be aware
    of media is a impressive source of data.

    my page - autoradio wasserdicht

    ReplyDelete
  39. It is not my first time to visit this website, i am browsing this site
    dailly and take pleasant data from here all the time.

    Review my site :: gunstige mp3 player

    ReplyDelete