“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” - George W. Bush

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

“We need to have a game changing action,” McCain said. “And that is no American boots on the ground, establish a safe zone, and to protect it and to supply weapons to the right people in Syria who are fighting for obviously, the things we believe in.”




MAY 06, 2013


Silence Gives Consent
The US and Israel’s Syrian Airstrikes
by ROBERT FISK

Lights in the sky over Damascus. Another Israeli raid – “daring” of course, in the words of Israel’s supporters, and the second in two days – on Bashar al-Assad’s weaponry and military facilities and weapons stores. The story is already familiar: the Israelis wanted to prevent a shipment of Iranian-made Fateh-110 missiles reaching Hezbollah in Lebanon;  they were being sent by the Syrian government. According, at least, to a ‘Western intelligence source’. Anonymous, of course. And it opens the old question: why when the Syrian regime is fighting for its life would it send advanced missiles out of Syria?
But the Syrians themselves have officially confirmed that military installations were hit by the Israelis. And not for the first time during the rebellion. The Fateh-110 – the new version, at least – has a range of perhaps 250km. And it could indeed reach Tel Aviv from southern Lebanon. If the Hezbollah has actually acquired any. But why would the Syrians send them, as US sources were also claiming last night, when the Americans themselves claimed only last December that the Syrians had used the same ground-to-ground missiles against rebel forces in Syria.
In other words, the Syrian regime was prepared to dispense with their rockets to Lebanon when they were already using them in the brutal war in Syria…  Now there are other questions to be asked. If the Syrian air force can use their MiGs so devastatingly – and at such civilian cost – against their enemies inside Syria, why couldn’t they have sent their jets to protect Damascus and attack the Israeli aircraft? Isn’t the Syrian air force supposed to be guarding Syria from Israel?  Or are the MiGs just not technically able to take on Israel’s state-of-the-art (American) hardware? Or would that just be a step too far?
Much more important, however, is the salient fact that Israel has now intervened in the Syrian war.  It may say it was only aiming at weapons destined for the Hezbollah – but these were weapons also being used against rebel forces in Syria.  By diminishing the regime’s supply of these weapons, it is therefore helping the rebels overthrow Bashar al-Assad. And since Israel regards itself as a Western nation – best friend and best US military ally in the Middle East, etc, etc – this means that “we” are now involved in the war, directly and from the air.
Let’s see if the US and the EU condemn Israel’s air attacks. I doubt it. Which would mean, if we are silent, that we approve of them. Silence, to quote Sir Thomas More, gives consent.
So now the Iranians and Hizballah are accused of intervening in Syria – true, though not to quite extent we are led to believe – and Qatar and Saudi Arabia funnel weapons to the rebels – true, but not quite enough weapons, as the Syrian rebels will tell you – and the Israelis have joined in. We are now militarily involved.
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent, where this column originally appeared. 


WHY THE PUSH FOR US INVOLVEMENT NOW?

129 comments:

  1. Israel’s reported second air strike on Syria in two days targeted a facility just outside the capital. But there was no escalation toward Israel to justify the attack – and Tel Aviv is only trying to drag the US into the conflict.

    That’s the view of journalist and Middle East expert Ali Rizk, who told RT he believes the actions are Israel’s attempt to influence US Middle East policy.

    RT: This isn’t just an isolated incident but a series of air offensives above a foreign territory. Why has Israel been so persistent despite the fact that such military action is a clear violation of international law?

    Ali Rizk: I think you have to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. Remember that all of the furor and havoc about chemical weapons? Who was the one that made this first announcement…it was Itai Brun, the military intelligence Israeli official who made the announcement about Syria using chemical weapons from the very beginning, after President Obama had said time and again, “that is the red line.”

    That didn’t succeed thus far in dragging the US to war against Syria so now I think we had two incidents.

    There was a reported Israeli strike on a convoy and now we have indeed an Israeli strike on Jamraya. So I think we have a classical example of what we might call Israel trying to manipulate US policy in the Middle East, trying to drag Obama yet again into another confrontation.

    I think that is the case which we have right now, once again. So Israel is going to continue with these practices until it drags the US into conflict.

    Why? The reason being that the Syrian army has made military advancements very recently. It seems that Bashar Assad militarily has gained the upper hand so Israel realizes Assad won’t be going unless there’s outside intervention. So Israel is trying to drag the US by saying “If you don’t go in, then we shall wreak havoc. We shall go ahead with our own military escalation.”

    RT: We’ve heard from commentators from Israel that the strikes are a balanced reaction. Do you agree?

    AR: Balanced reaction to what? It’s in Israel’s interests for this to happen. Has there been any escalation against Israel for Israel to react? Has there been any military action, has Israel been attacked by any side, whether it be Hezbollah or Syria? Has Israel been attacked by any side whatsoever? Israel has not been attacked.

    So we hear this talk about game-changing weapons. But that doesn’t give the right or justification for such escalation…I have to emphasize, the clear message if anyone had any doubts I think now it has become clear: Israel wants Bashar Assad to fall. That is Israel’s choice. Netanyahu himself has said time and again: “Syria is the linchpin between Iran and Hezbollah.”

    RT: The Assad government, which has been portrayed as warring tyrant by many countries, has now become the victim of a powerful war machine. Could Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran weigh in if Syria did go to war with Israel?

    AR: That’s the big question. The Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah made it clear and provides an answer to this question. In a speech last Thursday, he said that Syria’s real friends – meaning Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia – won’t allow Syria to fall into the hands of the US, Israel, or Al-Qaeda affiliates…

    I think what you have now is that Iran and Hezbollah now have a new significant ally of real significant weight which is Russia, which is continuing to the Middle East scene once again. So I think that if we do have escalation, Iran will intervene, Hezbollah will intervene, and I think also we might speak about a Russian intervention or some kind of a Russia role because Russia clearly has been very much present and there saying “I am here and I have a significant say.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The view of middle east expert Bob is that the Israelis are protecting themselves.

      Why would the Israelis, who I know are divided among themselves on these things, want Assad gone?

      He hasn't caused them all that much trouble, at least directly. He has been running arms.

      Why would they prefer the sunnis, who hate them just as much, and will be running arms as well?

      I realize the answer some give is it tends to weaken Iran. Maybe that is right, and they do want Assad gone.

      Or maybe sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Occam's Razor. They are just defending themselves, no Machiavellian motive involved.

      These new rockets are a big improvement over what was in Lebanon before.

      After reading some Israeli sites and papers, I think many there agree with a strong view in the US, they are fine with leaving them to kill one another.

      Which makes a kind of inhumanitarian sense from their point of view, and ours, even though it is thought more proper to wish for peace among them, at least publically.

      I have an easier time understanding why Obama was running arms to the rebs. Always has a soft spot in his heart for the sunnis and MB types. So what if there are a few al-Qaeda in the ranks?

      Obama began our great noble adventure in Syria, no help from the Israelis there that I can see.

      Delete
  2. This IMO is what is happening. As usual the US media focuses on the spittle riddle coming from John McCain. Obama is golfing. Kerry is on his way to Moscow to see if he can roll Putin.

    The US is going to war, again. The puppet masters in DC, London and Tel Aviv could not be happier. The outcome? Who cares?

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

      Delete
  3. Honestly, have you ever heard anything more idiotic than this:

    “We need to have a game changing action,” McCain said. “And that is no American boots on the ground, establish a safe zone, and to protect it and to supply weapons to the right people in Syria who are fighting for obviously, the things we believe in.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If McCain can find anyone in Syria that believes in the things I believe in I will eat my new cowboy boots.

      Delete
    2. .

      Heck, Bob, you have trouble finding that here.

      .

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

      Delete
  4. Carla Del Ponte, a member of the U.N. commission looking into the alleged use of the nerve gas sarin in Syria, said Sunday that opposition forces - and not the Assad regime -- may have been the ones who used the weapons. According to Reuters, she told Swiss-Italian television there are "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof" of sarin gas being used. She said it was "on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities."

    But the White House and Pentagon sharply challenged the claim.

    "The commission has not reached any conclusive findings. The fact of the matter is that we are highly skeptical that the opposition has used chemical weapons," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

    He claimed it’s most likely the Assad regime was behind any weapons use.

    The U.N. commission investigating the attacks also watered down Del Ponte's comments in a written statement Monday, as they came under increasing scrutiny. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic said it "wishes to clarify that it has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict."

    Carney said the U.S. is still looking for conclusive evidence about chemical weapons use in Syria. He said there is no timeline for the investigation.

    Secretary of State John Kerry was leaving for Moscow on Monday to discuss the situation in Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin.


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/senate-chairman-pushed-for-arming-syrian-rebels/#ixzz2SamCMkej

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well,

    if Jay Carney says it is so, it must be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They are learning fast in Pakistan.


    LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) — In majority Muslim Pakistan, religious minorities say democracy is killing them.

    Intolerance has been on the rise for the past five years under Pakistan’s democratically elected government because of the growing violence of Islamic radicals, who are then courted by political parties, say many in the country’s communities of Shiite Muslims, Christians, Hindus and other minorities.

    On Saturday, the country will elect a new parliament, marking the first time one elected government is replaced by another in the history of Pakistan, which over its 66-year existence has repeatedly seen military rule. But minorities are not celebrating. Some of the fiercest Islamic extremists are candidates in the vote, and minorities say even the mainstream political parties pander to radicals to get votes, often campaigning side-by-side with well-known militants.

    More than a dozen representatives of Pakistan’s minorities interviewed by The Associated Press expressed fears the vote will only hand more influence to extremists. Since the 2008 elections, under the outgoing government led by the left-leaning Pakistan People’s Party, sectarian attacks have been relentless and minorities have found themselves increasingly targeted by radical Islamic militants. Minorities have little faith the new election will change that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the General-President is under arrest, for both murder and treason.

      Ten, twelve billion dollars, pissed away.
      Given to the folk that supervised the Taliban, back in 2001.

      Delete
  7. Democracy is the best thing ever, for sure. Nothing like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Talk to Jimmy Carter. Iran was better off under the Shah.

      Egypt will be worse under the MB.

      Delete
    2. .

      Another appeal to authority.

      First, it was the American Thinker and now Jimminy Carter.

      .

      Delete
    3. Egypt, the birth place of Doc Z.
      We certainly hope things get worse, there.

      Been working towards that goal, for a tad more than a decade, the US has.

      The only question, did the US tell the Egyptian Army to stand down, or did the Army tell US they could no longer contain the Islamoids, politically?

      I think the latter, rather than the former is the case.

      A Egypt in anarchy is better than an Egypt on the march.
      At least for US and our allies in the region.

      As well as for keeping Suez open.
      It's income stream now ever more important to the civil government, the Islamoid politicos.
      They will well tend their asset.

      Delete
  8. Just what they needed in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. The Syrians, next on the ledge to sip its nectar.

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

      Delete
  9. Just another day, perfect in all ways for another mass murder or two.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “All persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental.” - KV

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is possible Jordan might be next.

    Obama goes to the middle east first thing, first term, gives a big stupid speech in Cairo, and look what we have now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have a disorganized, incompetent opponent, on the far side of the whirled. One no longer focused upon US, but on regimes in their own region.

      The Islamic Arc is aflame.
      It's all good.

      Even Johnnie McC says no US boots.

      Send in the drones.
      Oh, that's right, the Israeli are already there.

      Delete
  12. There is always another opinion -

    Even if no other justification existed for Obama to create a no-fly zone to expedite Assad's exit, there is the need to ensure Iran is dealt a decisive blow to its global designs for exporting its Islamic Revolution. This involves removing Syria from Tehran's sphere of influence. There are reports that Iran -- recognizing the seriousness of Syria's loss as an ally -- is considering sending more forces to support Assad. Severing (((((((the Iran/Syria alliance is critical to the U.S. since Iraq now shows signs of falling under Iran's influence.))))))))

    (heh - Do we know what we are doing, or what? Should have divided the place up)

    Would U.S. intervention in Syria prevent an extremist takeover after Assad? There is no guarantee. As dictators fall, there is little certainty who will ultimately emerge in power when the dust settles. While Libya today is ranked "partly free" by Freedom House, we still await the final outcome of Gaddafi's fall. But even an outcome putting Sunni extremists in power in Damascus is a partial win, as it would leave Shiite Iran with a much greater problem in the region than it would the U.S.

    There is every motivation for Obama to finally take limited action in Syria. The basis for doing so is the red line he himself drew and Assad elected to cross. It will cap Islamist power, maximize democracy-minded rebels' power in a post-Assad Syria, hopefully stop the killing of Syrians, release Syria from Iran's clutches and end regional fallout.

    In the two-plus year performance of his Syrian foreign policy, Obama has played the role of "Dudley Do-nothing-right."He needs to drop it now to play "Dudley Do-right."

    May 7, 2013
    Holding Assad to Account
    By James Zumwalt

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/holding_assad_to_account.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James Zumwalt?

      Iran, nah. There is no justification for US action, based upon Iran's "best interests"

      We gave Iraq over to Iranian agents.
      Was that the intended consequence?

      The US politicos do not understand the sand box.
      Taste their results in Iraq, for proof positive that Johnnie McC and his cohort are inept, incompetent and in someone's pocket, trying to replicate US action in Libya.

      Delete
  13. Even the arabs are confused -

    Israel strikes a blow to conventional Arab thinking

    ‘Israel is still my enemy, but when my enemy does a neat job — I admit it,’ writes one Syrian commentator.

    The alleged Israeli strikes on Iranian missiles en route to Hezbollah in Syria over the weekend have left Arab observers conflicted; for while many have been hoping — secretly or publicly — for a decisive military strike against President Bashar Assad, few expected or indeed wished for it to come from Israel.

    Until early Sunday’s strikes on military targets near Damascus, conventional wisdom within the Syrian opposition was that Israel secretly supported Assad and was preventing his ouster. A Syrian Muslim Brotherhood official told The Times of Israel last year that Israel was pressuring the US and Russia to prop up Assad. A refugee from Daraa living in Jordan argued that Israel wanted Assad in power, because losing him would mean losing the Golan Heights, captured in 1967, and destabilizing Israel’s quietest border.......

    .....
    “I’m sorry, but I can’t make up my mind between the Syrian army and the Israeli. (((((((The latter never harmed me, but the Arab inside me hates it; whereas everything inside me hates the former)))))),” Al-Zaiat tweeted (Arabic-langage link).

    (Heh -recall Martha Gellhorn's anti-paean to Arab hate!!!! - they breath hatred, they roll in it, they eat it - and what good has it ever done them?)

    No official Syrian movement would openly praise Israel for its strike against Assad’s military targets on Monday. The more prevalent attitude was to challenge the government to retaliate against the Zionist state, mocking the ineptitude of a regime that prides itself on standing at the forefront of Arab resistance to Israel.

    Benedetta Berti, an expert on Syria at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies, said that, politically speaking, Israeli attacks on Syria are more of a liability than an asset for the anti-Assad opposition.

    “This is very tricky for the opposition, since it clearly gives the Assad regime political ammunition to claim the rebels are collaborating with Israel,” Berti said in an interview. “The best they can do is stand back and condemn the attacks as a violation of Syrian sovereignty.”

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-strikes-a-blow-to-conventional-arab-thinking/


    Anyone that can make real sense out of all this deserves some real praise.

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

      Delete
  14. Anyone that gets us involved in that mess deserves to have his neck stretched.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be Obama, he is the only one that can, finally.

      I will remind you of this when the no-fly zone goes up.

      ;)

      Delete
  15. I have to chuckle, most of you guys thought Johnnie McC would have made a nifty President.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Better than the one we've got, is all. Marginally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a chance, boobie.

      We'd still be in Iraq
      Bleedin' out in the sand.

      Delete
    2. A President is more than foreign policy, General Bunk.

      And besides, Bunk, we left Iraq a little too soon. "....the Iran/Syria alliance is critical to the U.S. since Iraq now shows signs of falling under Iran's influence"

      Delete
    3. .

      Nitwit.

      All we did in Iraq was prove our incompetence. All we would have done by staying longer would have been to add a few punctuation marks tallied up a bigger loss of lives and treasure. All we got out of the surge was three more years and the loss of an additional 1000 lives.

      Nothing else would have changed. The end result in Iraq could have been (and was) predicted after the first year or so.

      .

      Delete
  17. Our military in action

    US air force sexual assault prevention unit chief charged with sexual battery

    An officer who led the US air force's sexual assault prevention and response unit has been charged with groping a woman in a northern Virginia parking lot, authorities said on Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)

      This place always seems to have the very highest quality experts that can be found.

      Delete
    2. .

      Let remember WHO Fisk IS?


      You say that like it's a bad thing WiO.

      .

      Delete
    3. Pretty smart fella, this Fisk.

      "After the allied victory of 1918, at the end of my father's war, the victors divided up the lands of their former enemies. In the space of just seventeen months, they created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and most of the Middle East. And I have spent my entire career—in Belfast and Sarajevo, in Beirut and Baghdad—watching the people within those borders burn."

      All to true.
      Thanks for verification that Mr Fisk is a man in the know. His perspective grounded, his perceptions, accurate.

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

      Delete
    5. Fisk knows the territory better than anyone in the US Administration. He confounds the Israelis because of it and he says so. If you want to do any intelligent analysis on anything, why read people that you always agree with. Intelligence doesn’t work that way. I learned that when I was 19.

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And FOX News is owned by an Auzzie ex-pat "One Whirlder" and a Saudi Prince.

      The NYTimes, a Mexican billionaire, Carlos Slim Helu.

      Every source is tainted, by self-interest.

      Delete
    2. Ironically, RT and AlJazeera have superior reporting and sources and points of view to any of the US majors.

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

      Delete
    4. .

      At a minimum, RT is at least honest about who and what they are. There is a certain value to knowing who you are talking to and what their agenda is even if you disagree with much of it. On the other hand, those who portray themselves as something other than what they are, well, not so much.

      .

      Delete
  20. boobie, you now tell us that Israel uses its military to back al-Qaeda, and it is a good thing.

    Now you support those that support al-Qaeda.

    The US could take military action against Israel, because it is support of al-Qaeda, in Syria.
    Israel is now supporting, with air strikes, al-Qaeda efforts in expanding its base of international terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Little wonder, then, you still like Johnnie McC.

      Delete
    2. A no fly zone in Syria, it'll never happen.

      The US would have to shoot down Israeli planes.

      Delete
    3. I've said just the opposite, Bunk.

      What I said was it was my opinion at this point that all Israel has done is destroy arms that they didn't want going into Lebanon.

      I have no idea who or if anyone the people that call the shots in Israel are supporting.

      I think they are defending themselves.

      I do know the Israeli people are divided somewhat on just what it is they should do about Syria as a whole, if anything. I have read the opinion of some there, like many many here, that it is not a wholly bad thing that they are killing one another in Syria.

      Mention this ides in society circles only in hushed voice to your trusted friends. Otherwise you will be accused of not caring about the orphans.

      You need remedial reading.

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

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

      Delete
    6. Remember the run-up to the Iraqi War?

      The Bushies were wailing, "They're shooting at our planes" (that were enforceing the "no fly zone.")

      Delete
    7. .

      A no fly zone in Syria, it'll never happen.

      The US would have to shoot down Israeli planes.




      :)

      Quite a conundrum for Lindsey and Johnny. Wonder what old Shemp...er...I mean Joe would have to say about it?

      .



      Delete
    8. What you, boobie, told us was that Israel acted in its own interests.

      That those dovetail so tightly with al-Qaeda's interests, interesting.

      Regardless of motive, Israel is the first "State" to use military aircraft in support of al-Qaeda's mission.

      Another "First" for Israel!

      Delete
    9. Israel could now be attacked, by US, using thee 14SEP01 AUMF.
      More than a State sponsor of terror, Israel now is an active ally of al-Qaeda in Syria.

      We must do something!

      We have an authorization to use force, against those that aid al-Qaeda.

      Delete
    10. Is it legal for the President NOT to act, against al-Qaeda allies?

      Delete
  21. A no fly zone in Syria, it'll never happen.

    The US would have to shoot down Israeli planes.

    heh

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

      Delete
  22. For a bit more detail on the methodology, Brian McConnell, a software engineer and the creator of The Joule Standard, explains:


    Using data from the Energy Information Agency, I pulled together a history of retail prices for natural gas, crude oil, gasoline and residential electricity, all adjusted for inflation. For each energy source, I converted the prices to $/gigajoule, using conversion factors from engineering tables. (For example, a million cubic feet of natural gas contains 1.083 gigajoules of energy content).

    Next, using data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and other sources, I looked up the price history for solar power, in terms of dollar per Watt of system capacity (a standard unit of measure for solar). With this data, I built a cost model to translate the cost of a solar cell into $/gigajoule. The basic idea is to amortize the system cost over its useful life, and divide this by the average amount of power it generates per month. This allows the cost of solar to be compared directly to other sources.

    The comparison shows quite clearly that the cost effectiveness of solar power is increasing exponentially. In 1977, solar cells cost upwards of $70 per Watt of capacity. In 2013, that cost has dropped to $0.74 per Watt, a 100:1 improvement (source: The Economist). On average, solar power improves 14% per year in terms of energy production per dollar invested.

    Good stuff.

    There’s still a lot of room for improvement in the efficiency of solar cells and in bringing down their costs, through technological advancement and

    Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/06/solar-a-disruptive-technology-graph/#qgOPyUFWcahHeU8x.99

    A Disruptive Technology

    ReplyDelete



  23. desert ratTue May 07, 07:06:00 AM EDT

    Little wonder, then, you still like Johnnie McC.


    Ah, but you see, I don't like Johnnie McC. I voted for Sarah Palin, and against Obama.

    McC seems to be in favor basically of giving your land back to Mexico through immigration. I can see why you don't him. I don't like him either. I am not in favor of giving the southwest back to Mexico. I'd rather you keep it. It doesn't bother me at all that you have 360 acres of rich stolen bottom land, and plenty cattle.

    I imagine you tend it well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are full of shit, mostly, but not all hat, no cattle.

      I've wanted to ask you about breeding a horse, and maybe will sometime. I do know you know horses.

      Maybe I will ask sometime, when I'm in the mood, see what you say, if anything.

      Delete
    2. .

      In other words, 'maybe' you will have to see a man about a horse?

      .

      Delete
    3. Unless you are enthralled with breeding, the miracle of life and all that ...

      There is little reason to breed a horse.
      None that are economic.

      Go to southern Colorado, two year olds are available for fifty bucks, on a strong day, for sellers.

      We've got two babies on the ground. Cute little boogers, they may turn out, but its all just fun.
      There's no business to it. Sure don't pencil out.

      But my girls sure like 'em.

      Delete
    4. That's what I thought. Thanks. I'm not sure my daughter even wants to do it, but, like you say "cute little boogfers", that's what got me thinking about it.

      Delete

    5. In other words, 'maybe' you will have to see a man about a horse?

      Can't ask you. You don't know nothin'.

      Besides, you're a mean spirited clown, not a man.

      Delete
    6. If she is still "Cowboy Shooting", just go buy her a champion.

      $5,000 would put her on a horse that could win the money. Make her competitive on a higher level.

      I know a girl that just happens to have one ....

      Delete
    7. She is taking some lessons. She still has a lot to learn. Has an Egyptian Arabian, not so big as the last Appaloosa. 6 years old. Lots of pep, but gentle too. Not in the market now, but thanks for the info.

      Delete
    8. If she likes the horse, get her involved in Endurance riding, 5 and 50 milers. The Arab horses are GREAT at that. I think that as a sport, it's distance riding is making a come back. It requires a lot of horsemanship and to finish is to win. At least in the beginning.

      The Arab will never make a real competitive Cowboy Shooting horse.

      If she likes that sport, get her a good Quarter gymkhana horse.
      No bigger than 14.2 hands, maybe 1,000 pds, max.

      Buy a finish horse, not one that needs any training or, more pertinently, a trainer.
      Five to twelve years old, reasonably sound.
      A little bute before a performance never hurt anyone.

      A riding instructor is one thing, but a green rider competing on a green horse, that's recipe for disaster.

      Delete
    9. Should have read ... 25 and 50 ...

      Delete
  24. .

    Well it's been a year and a half since our last war ended. People still complain about the economy continuing to slink along. Abortion and gay marriage have been milked dry. Trifling things like Benghazi are sticking around like a foul odor. And we don't really have to worry about politicking for 2014 for another 6 months.

    Time to start another war.

    War and circuses. The cycle continues.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  25. Each day Drudge has unbelievable stories, but true.

    Three young women held for Ten Years in a home in a crowed neighborhood in Ohio and nobody notices a thing. Chains hanging from the ceiling.

    Hard to believe. And they finally got out alive. And in decent physical shape.

    Time to go back to bed.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies





    1. May 7, 2013
      Three women kidnapped a decade ago found alive
      Rick Moran

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/three_women_kidnapped_a_decade_ago_found_alive.html

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  27. The question asked daily, here at the Libertarian ...

    What is quot?

    The answer is being formulated.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Let’s see, who should I trust, Aipac, John McCain, Bibi Netanyahu , Barack Obama or Robert Fisk?

    I think I go with Fisk .

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

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

      Delete
    3. .

      As opposed to Jihadwatch, AEI, the Weekly Standard, and the American Thinker?

      Right.


      .

      Delete
  30. Fisk is an interesting guy. Well worth reading.

    This guy Ramsey is also interesting but not in a foreign policy vein. He's the one who called 911. Here are a couple of links - one to the uncensored 911 call and the other to the unedited CNN interview. Gave me a laugh this morning!

    The 911 call…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRBHpZhbcSw

    Interview

    http://youtu.be/FWOmYH0GjqA


    ReplyDelete
  31. If these military sexual assaults are rampant amongst the ranks, what are they doing to women in the foreign countries that we are assaulting?

    WASHINGTON (AP) - The sexual battery arrest of the Air Force officer who led the service's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response unit underscores how far the Defense Department has to go in addressing the plague of sexual crimes in the military, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told a committee hearing that a Pentagon report to be released later Tuesday reportedly estimates that, on average, there are more than 70 sexual assaults involving military personnel every day.

    Authorities in Arlington County, Va., said Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski was charged with groping a woman in a northern Virginia parking lot on Sunday. Krusinski was removed from his post in the sexual assault unit after the Air Force learned of his arrest. He started in the post in February

    "While under our legal system everyone is innocent until proven guilty, this arrest speaks volumes about the status and effectiveness of (the Defense) department's efforts to address the plague of sexual assaults in the military," Levin said.

    The Pentagon report says that the number of sexual assaults reported by members of the military rose from 3,192 to 3,374 in 2012, while the department estimates that as many as 26,000 service members were assaulted, based on anonymous surveys, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the report.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hearts and minds, tits and ass?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Going nowhere?

    May 7, 2013
    Some senators seeking AUMF revisions
    Rick Moran




    The Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution may be tweaked if some senators get their way.

    There are a host of revisions desired by liberals, conservatives, and libertarians that, according to Politico, would give both the White House and congressional leadership "heartburn":


    Top senators in both parties have begun talks to revise the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to lawmakers and aides involved in the discussions.

    Though in its early stages, such a debate could cause serious heartburn for the White House and party leaders seeking to push through any revised use-of-force resolution. A Senate floor fight over replacing the 9/11 resolution could lead to broader political battles on critical areas of President Barack Obama's national security policy, including the war in Afghanistan, the use of armed drone attacks against suspected terrorists, treatment of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, and the scope of the president's authority as commander-in-chief to combat terrorism worldwide.


    The bipartisan Senate talks also come at a time when Obama is catching flak for his aggressive drone policy, and Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) 13-hour filibuster on the issue struck a chord with some members of both parties.

    Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) met recently to discuss the issue, the senators and their aides said.

    Other senators involved in the talks include Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Corker is the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Levin has scheduled a May 16 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the matter.

    Levin, who has already announced his retirement at the end of this Congress, was tight-lipped when approached on Monday about his upcoming hearing and his discussions with Durbin and McCain.

    "The whole issue is a very complex issue," Levin said. "It's the complexity of the issue that needs to be dealt with."

    At stake is whether the 9/11 resolution is still relevant more than 12 years after it was adopted by Congress in the wake of the attacks by al Qaeda terrorists on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Those attacks prompted an American-led invasion of Afghanistan, a military campaign that is still ongoing and could last for years longer, even after U.S. combat forces leave the troubled country in 2014.

    Liberals have been itching to make changes in the AUMF for years. And some conservatives and libertarians like Rand Paul and Mike Lee want to revise the drone policy to protect American citizens and provide oversight that is lacking now.

    In truth, AUMF empowered the executive at the expense of congress. But some liberals are seeking to emasculate the president by tying his hands in responding to threats around the world.


    That's why these negotiations will be so sensitive. The goal will be to revise AUMF without making it too difficult for a president to act if he believes there is a threat. But even if the Armed Services Committee comes up with a package of reforms, there is no guarantee that the rest of the senate will accept them - or the House. Many lawmakers believe it is better to leave AUMF alone. That view has a good chance of prevailing at this point.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And so ...

      It has begun.

      Remember .....

      You read it here first.

      Delete
  34. It has occurred to me that an amazing thing may have happened.

    Are we not all agreed that the US should stay out of Syria?

    If so, it is the first time I can recall that all agree on something.

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

      Delete
    2. Can't disagree with that.

      Kurds seem to have suffered in at least three countries.

      I'm all for no-fault divorce. They should have a place of their own.



      .....

      Here's an article about Christian cleansing in the area.

      It seems dictators are better for Christians than islamists, unsurprisingly.

      >A mass exodus of Christians is currently underway. Millions of Christians are being displaced from one end of the Islamic world to the other.

      We are reliving the true history of how the Islamic world, much of which prior to the Islamic conquests was almost entirely Christian, came into being.

      The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently said: “The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it’s increasing year by year.” In our lifetime alone “Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt.”

      Ongoing reports from the Islamic world certainly support this conclusion: Iraq was the earliest indicator of the fate awaiting Christians once Islamic forces are liberated from the grip of dictators. <

      The mass exodus of Christians from the Muslim world


      By Raymond Ibrahim

      Published May 07, 2013

      FoxNews.com


      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/07/mass-exodus-christians-from-muslim-world/#ixzz2SciNyxkQ


      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/07/mass-exodus-christians-from-muslim-world/#ixzz2SchDlaag

      Jewish people were the first forced out, now the Christians are being forced out.

      Really it is beyond me why we would allow any more moslems at all into the United States. We have a pretty good thing going here. Why invite in trouble? They are the only wants that want to fundamentally spoil the party.

      Delete
    3. .

      And perhaps blacks should have their own land here. They have been here about as long as the whites and they have suffered also. And what about those crazy Hawaians who were politicking for their own country. Or perhaps we should recognize the unique culture of the South and revisit the abuse we heaped on them during the Civil War. And Texas is certainly unique and there has been talk there of leaving the union. Or why stop there. We increased the size of the country by 1/3 for a paltry pittance of $15 million during the war with Mexico. Different language, different culture, surely they deserve their own country. And that is just the U.S.

      Heck the world is rife with examples worthy of your map-drawing and ghettoization proclivities. And when it has been done in the past, things have worked out so well. Genius.

      Face it, the ME is made up of tribes. Their cultures are built on tribalism. Drawing a few lines on the map would not diminish the tribalism and sectarian strife.It would likely enhance it. It would not stop the forced movement of sectarian populations and religious minorities it would accelerate it. Every new line you drew on the map would be dotted with refugee camps.

      Your idea to just draw a few more lines on the map is obviously not practical on its face, but it is also the usual 'do-gooder' clap trap we hear from those like the munchkins in OZ who ignore both the practicality of their actions but also the predictable as well as the unintended consequences of their actions.

      Bob, Wio, and Joe Biden, the David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson of the modern age.

      .

      Delete
    4. His hero, Winston Churchill drew the Middle East maps.
      Job well done? He tells us that he thinks, not.

      But it does diminish his adoration of Mr Churchill

      Delete
    5. .

      True enough rat.

      I thought there were more than a the few new countries created after WWI. However, the mandate system did come in after WWI with the League of Nations and it was that which led to the busy work of map-making after WWII.

      .

      Delete
  35. Gotta run, the world calls.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are the only ones that want to fundamentally spoil the party.

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

    ReplyDelete
  37. .

    Can't ask you. You don't know nothin'.

    Besides, you're a mean spirited clown, not a man.



    Right, and Deuce is predjudiced, Jenny is mentally disturbed, and rat is a serial killer.

    This from the Mr. Green Jeans of northwestern Idaho, stoic and neutral observer of all things political, aspiring map-maker, pseudo-intellectual and professed expert on all things transcendental, dilettante of doggerel, gentleman farmer, lover of mom and apple pie, acclaimed philosopher of the American Thinker/Jihadwatch school, collector of rare free t-shirts, bon-vivant, and occasional resident of the Sunnyside Time Out Residence for the Intellectually Special.

    :)


    .

    ReplyDelete
  38. "aspiring map-maker"

    Yes, I would redraw some lines in the middle east, for sure. But I haven't the power, alas, if I had the world would be more peaceful. And we are all for that, are we not? I do believe in separating people who cannot get along, nationally, internationally, and in marriage. Perhaps even in the bars, lest the fistfights break out.

    And Deuce is prejudiced. Your friend Trish said so. "Deuce, keep the racism down." And Jenny is an idiot, disturbed or not. I've pledged to not discuss previous disputes concerning rat any longer.

    "Besides, you're a mean spirited clown, not a man.


    Right"

    This is remarkable. It is uncommon for someone to agree that they are a mean spirited clown.

    You are remarkable.

    :)

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

      Delete
    2. .

      And, yes, I am remarkable. Some have said, the most remarkable man in the world.

      .

      Delete
    3. You, at least, have said so.

      Send me an e-mail, I will tell you why I am angry.

      out for the day

      Delete
    4. .

      I likely would if I weren't so mean-spirited.


      :)


      .

      Delete
  39. Castro Brothers mug shots -

    Ariel Castro, Pedro Castro and Onil Castro

    http://hinterlandgazette.com/2013/05/mugshots-ariel-castro-brothers-pedro-onil-castro-released.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Larry, Moe, and Curly mug shot


      http://www.towleroad.com/2012/12/piers.html

      .

      Delete
    2. :)

      Yeah, but I'd rather hang out with those folks than the Castro bros.

      Delete
  40. Last week, several polls came out assessing U.S. public opinion on intervention in Syria.

    According to the Huffington Post poll, Americans oppose U.S. air strikes on Syria by 3-to-1. They oppose sending arms to the rebels by 4-to-1. They oppose putting U.S. ground troops into Syria by 14-to-1. Democrats, Republicans and independents are all against getting involved in that civil war that has produced 1.2 million refugees and 70,000 dead.


    A CBS/New York Times poll found that by 62-to-24 Americans want to stay out of the Syrian war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that by 61-to-10 Americans oppose any U.S. intervention.

    But the numbers shift when the public is asked if it would make a difference if the Syrian regime used poison gas. In that case, opposition to U.S. intervention drops to 44-to-27 in Reuters/Ipsos.

    Yet on the Sunday talk shows and cable news, the hawks are over-represented. To have a senator call for arming the rebels and U.S. air strikes is a better ratings "get" than to have on a senator who wants to stay out of the war.

    In that same CBS poll, however, the 10 percent of all Americans who say they follow the Syrian situation closely were evenly divided, 47-to-48, on whether to intervene.

    The portrait of America that emerges is of a nation not overly interested in what is going on in Syria, but which overwhelmingly wants to stay out of the war.

    But it is also a nation whose foreign policy elites are far more interventionist and far more supportive of sending weapons to the rebels and using U.S. air power. From these polls, it is hard not to escape the conclusion that the Beltway elites who shape U.S. foreign policy no longer represent the manifest will of Middle America.


    Who Are the War Criminals in Syria?



    By Pat Buchanan - May 7, 2013


    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/07/who_are_the_war_criminals_in_syria__118273.html

    ReplyDelete
  41. Obamas host secret, star-studded bash at White House... Drudge

    Barky is partying again, as the Syrian Crisis deepens, as the Benghazi wheels begin to really come off the Barky Benghazi Bike, and as John Kerry is left waiting by Putin for hours.

    I'll bet there is more than liquor at this party.

    Something to elate, and lend forgetfulness to the soul, at the same time.

    Rufus wasn't invited. This seems unjust after all the support Rufus has given to Barky.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Thanκs for yоuг marvelous ρosting!
    Ӏ гeallу enϳοуed readіng it, you're a great author. I will always bookmark your blog and may come back in the future. I want to encourage you to continue your great posts, have a nice evening!

    Visit my web-site - long term loans no fee

    ReplyDelete
  43. Did drudge have a breathless headline every time the Bushes, or the Reagans had a group over at the White House?

    I don't remember it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. A new report from Pew Research finds that gun homicide rates in the United States have dropped 49 percent between 1993 and 2010. Other types of gun violence have dropped 75 percent over that period. Here it is in chart form:

    Chart of the Day: Gun Homicides Down 49% since 1993


    huh. who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  45. China posted an $18.16 billion trade surplus in April after reporting an unexpected $884 million deficit in March.

    ReplyDelete
  46. On this day in 1946, Masaru Ibuka formed a company out of his radio repair shop in Tokyo. The company was initially called “Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corporation” and it had around 20 employees at the time it was founded. The company is still around today, has since been renamed and is more commonly referred to as Sony.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Study This Graph

    a bit, and you'll see why I'm thinking that the deficit this year might be closer to $645 Billion than the projected $845 Billion.

    That would be 4% of GDP, a number that's getting pretty close to something we can live with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to waste time on the graph.

      I take everything you write as gospel.

      Honest.

      Delete
  48. Three young women, reunited with their families for the first time in nearly a decade, were beginning to talk to investigators Tuesday about their life in captivity amid reports that the women were forced to endure years of sexual abuse and beatings inside a rundown house on Cleveland's west side.

    ...

    Police have arrested three brothers, Ariel Castro, 52, the owner of the house and a former Cleveland school bus driver; Pedro Castro, 54; and Onil Castro, 50, in connection with the alleged abductions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. MY HERO!

    Sanford is the first GD Republican to live the life of a Democrat and still get elected!

    That ain't nuthin.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Maybe Rufie II and 'Rat can serially service Stephen Colbert to assuage his damaged tender sensibilities.

    I consider it your responsibility as MSM Mouthpieces.
    (so to speak)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Gotta go:

    Opened my bedroom door and found the entire rest of the house filled w/billions of cicadas.

    ...your faithful correspondent in the very near far east.

    ReplyDelete
  52. One last post, followed by the sound of crickets:

    Glad we still got liberals, here, there, and everywhere.
    Otherwise this poor bastard mighta been locked up:

    Crime History: Actor Ashton Kutcher's girlfriend found dead

    On this day, Feb. 22, in 2001, a 22-year-old girlfriend of actor Ashton Kutcher was found fatally stabbed at her Hollywood Hills home.

    Kutcher, then 23, told police that he went to Ashley Ellerin's home the night before and knocked on her door, but no one answered. He peeked through the window and saw what he thought was spilled red wine on the floor. He then left.

    Ellerin was found dead by her roommate early the next morning. She had been stabbed dozens of times, and her head had been nearly severed from her body.

    In 2008, police said they matched DNA from the crime scene to Michael Gargiulo after he was arrested in a knife attack of a woman in Santa Monica, Calif.

    Gargiulo, an air-conditioning repairman and aspiring actor, has been charged in two more murders. He has been dubbed the "Hollywood Ripper."

    - Scott McCabe

    ReplyDelete
  53. Too deep for 'Rat and Rubio's Pea-Brains to fathom:

    "The Heritage Foundation late Tuesday responded to Sen. Marco Rubio's criticisms of a foundation study that shows the steep cost of providing a pathway to citizenship for the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants.

    Rubio, R-Fla., called the study “flawed” and suggested it maligned immigrants who are not highly educated. Rubio’s parents, who arrived from Cuba in the 1950′s without high school diplomas, are exactly the kind of immigrants the study recommends should not be allowed to enter the country.

    “The folks described in the report are my family,” Rubio said.

    Heritage contacted The Washington Examiner with this response:

    Sen. Rubio’s family story is a testament to the American Dream. His parents’ ability to scrimp and save and sacrifice for their children is something in which we all take pride. The story of the Rubios, in fact, makes the point we make with our study. They represent the immigration model that worked for America for centuries and one we need to get back to.


    Sign Up for the Politics Digest newsletter!


















    Sen. Rubio’s parents came here in 1956, almost a decade before the introduction of the Great Society programs that laid the foundation of the modern welfare state. Over the following four and a half decades, our government has added layer upon layer of government involvement in our lives, creating a dependency that undermines self-respect and self-reliance.

    "That dependency has been devastating to our society; it has shattered communities, families and individuals. It is now threatening the American Dream. This is true for all—native and immigrant alike, legal or illegal. We do not blame immigrants for being entrapped by that system; we blame the people who created that system. We especially blame people who now seek to expand it.

    This is why Heritage has been leading the fight on the need to recreate upward mobility for low and middle income Americans. The current welfare and entitlement systems lower opportunity and make it all but impossible for people to climb the ladder of success.

    Heritage has worked with Sen. Rubio on numerous issues and we admire him. He is right: Our study is “an argument for welfare reform and entitlement reform.” He cannot pretend, however, that this already herculean task will be made easier after we have added millions of new people to a failing entitlement system. The time to fix it is now. We are ready to work with him and any man and woman of either party who realizes the urgency of our plight.

    As Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist once said:

    “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. You cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which a resident is promised certain minimum level of income or a minimum subsistence regardless of whether he works or not produces it or not. Well then it really is an impossibility.”
    "

    ReplyDelete
  54. “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.

    You cannot have both.

    If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which a resident is promised certain minimum level of income or a minimum subsistence regardless of whether he works or not produces it or not.

    Well then it really is an impossibility.”
    "

    ReplyDelete
  55. Too bad so many are so dumbed down as to be unable to understand such a simple proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  56. They piled up against the door and broke it down.

    Over and out.

    (sound of crickets)

    ReplyDelete
  57. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has concluded that generals do not live up to the standards they demand of others. According to the New York Times, “Under General Dempsey’s plan, teams of inspectors will observe and review the procedures . . . in effect for all generals.

    ...

    Have our military’s best and brightest lost the capacity to improvise? Clearly, that merits an assessment.

    Will General Dempsey ask for a review of his own procedures? Do as I say, or as I do?

    ReplyDelete
  58. 'Lugo', a neighbor, says on Fox News that three old ladies in the area saw three naked women on leashes crawling around in the back yard of the Castro house. The Police were called but didn't show.

    No follow up.

    After all, it's just three younger women crawling around naked in the back yard of a house in an area where three young women have gone missing.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

    by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

    The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons......

    ......Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.

    http://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

    The question being hypothetically researched is whether or not Obama could be impeached over Benghazi.
    The answer seems to be yes, though it is unlikely to happen.



    May 7, 2013
    Is there anything related to Benghazi that could get the president impeached?
    Rick Moran


    Short answer - not yet. For all the words spread around recently about impeaching Obama over Benghazi, there is a curious ommission made in every single article and blog post I've read that advocates or predicts that Obama will be impeached.

    They all seem to be missing the words "high crimes and misdemeanors."

    Yes, I know - that silly Constitution seems to get in the way of our fun. But in order to impeach a president, you can't just connect a few dots and proclaim conspiracy. There must be proof - hard proof that would stand up in a court of law - and I haven't seen anything yet that remotely reaches that tough standard.


    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/is_there_anything_related_to_benghazi_that_could_get_the_president_impeached.html


    Rick Moran may be wrong in his understanding of the phrase.

    ReplyDelete
  60. John Bolton: Benghazi could bring down Obama administration

    The Hinge Point


    The Benghazi scandal could be the final “hinge point” that brings down the Obama administration, former U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton said.

    “This could be the hinge point,” he said to Newsmax. “It’s that serious for them.”

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SPECIAL COVERAGE: Benghazi Attack Under Microscope

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Bolton is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

    His comments came as Congress is readying to hear testimony from several witnesses about the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Witness Greg Hicks already has stated publicly that the administration was aware that the attack was terrorist in nature, and not related to protests of a YouTube film about Muslims, as originally stated.

    Mr. Bolton said these witnesses’ testimonies could prove explosive.

    “The three witnesses who have been identified are not bystanders,” he said in the Newsmax report. “These are not people who are going to report on hearsay of what somebody in Tripoli told somebody that they heard from. These are people who are directly involved in different capacities before, during and after the attack.”

    Committee staffers have hinted that the witnesses’ statements are going to prove “devastating,” especially for then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And “you’ve already seen some Democratic members of Congress … beginning to run from this,” Mr. Bolton said in the Newsmax report.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/7/john-bolton-benghazi-could-bring-down-obama-admini/


    Don't forget to watch the hinges squeak tomorrow!!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Deuce,

    Going back to Fisk.

    Again a visit to the past. Back in the early '80s a friend of mine, actually two friends, were working for a network TV news show. I want to say it was ABC's Nightline. The incident was well publicized at the time so it could be that some of bar habitues might remember.

    Story goes that Sean Toolan did a story about Arafat's two-facedness. He was on assignment from Jerry King, the head of the Beirut bureau.

    Sean got into the Arafat controlled Palestinian area and reported, the first to do so I believe, that Arafat would make a speech in English which would be conciliatory and well received by the main stream press, politicos and all the folks that wanted a Palestinian State.

    But then Arafat would turn right around and make another speech to his supporters in Arabic. Distancing himself from the English speech and basically just more "hate the jew" rhetoric. "They must be destroyed, we'll never accept the State of Israel," etc., etc. All met by wild applause by his followers... And, of course, never, until that time, reported on by any member of the western press.

    Well, it turned into a big brouhaha.

    I think the segment only aired once. Big stink from Arafat and his supporters. The US government had the show pulled, demanded and got them, the network, to issue an apology...

    Sean, for his trouble, got an ice pick in his ear on the streets of Beirut. Sources and my friends say the assassins were Arafat goons... At the same time 3 or 4 other members of the western press, I'm pretty sure one was an AP guy and another was from the BBC were rounded up and held by other Arafat goons. This abduction was not reported by the western press... Jerry was threatened, also by Arafat goons, and what with Sean's murder, felt he should leave the area. Especially as they had gotten no backing from the network or the US government. Or the rest of the press corp for that matter... As I remember the abducted correspondents were released and, curiously, new bureaus were formed with reporters and editors who were more favorable in their view of the Palestinian "cause."


    This incident, and others similar, seemed to neuter any western press criticism of Arafat and his ilk... Remember how it stretched to CNN's coverage in Iraq. I think it, the press's hesitancy to report honestly about Islamic terror, is still reflected today.

    So, what about Fisk you ask?

    What he did was about as despicable an act as a man can do. He wrote an article after Sean's murder ridiculing him both personally and professionally. Completely fabricated in the facts according to Jerry and other friends... And for what purpose?

    As far as any of us could tell it was just to insert himself further up Arafat's diseased asshole. Fisk is a propagandist. Period.



    ReplyDelete