Lebanon's Hezbollah group on Thursday denounced this week's announcement of a new Saudi-led "Islamic military alliance" and the Lebanese prime minister's decision to join it. The Shiite militant group also accused the Sunni kingdom of practicing "state terrorism" and spreading extremist ideology.
Saudi Arabia's announcement on Tuesday of a 34-member coalition that includes Lebanon, with a joint operations center based in Riyadh, has caused a split in the tiny Mediterranean country, adding to its sectarian tensions and political divisions.
Being part of such an alliance would inflame two major schisms over Lebanon's political orientation — whether it is aligned with Saudi Arabia and its Western allies in the international arena, and whether it is a Muslim nation.
On Wednesday, Lebanese Prime Minister Tammam Salam, a Sunni, welcomed the Saudi move, saying it is only natural for Lebanon to be part of such an alliance against terror. But Hezbollah and its allies, as well as Christian parties, objected to the coalition.
Hezbollah said Thursday the alliance was a "U.S. project" and aims to create a Sunni armed force in the region to avoid sending U.S. ground troops to conflict areas.
The Shiite group also accused Saudi Arabia of supporting "terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq and Yemen" and said the kingdom is "responsible for spreading extreme terrorist ideology all over the world."
Hezbollah said Prime Minister Salam's remarks "represent his personal opinion" and were not binding because the decision was made outside Cabinet.
The Lebanese Foreign Ministry, led by a member of a party allied with Hezbollah, said Wednesday that it had no knowledge of the Saudi coalition before it was announced and that the decision "infringes on the ministry's prerogatives."
These actions by the US are one more reason why I am unlikely to vote for either major party's candidates in the 2016 election.
The vote indicates US resolve to continue its continued meddling in the ME. It is not only a continuance of the neocon dream, but also a sop to Israel and AIPAC. It also reflects the refusal of both parties to recognize and call out the fountainhead of terrorism in the world, Saudi Arabia.
As for the major candidates (which admittedly could change) Hillary is corrupt, a habitual liar, and based on her performance and inclinations, a raging neocon. Trump has outlined a platform based on bigotry, war crimes, and lunacy. Carson is light weight, ill-informed, and in-decisive. Rubio represents the second-coming of GWB, a raging neocon just slightly this side of Lindsay Graham. He is in the pocket of a billionaire sugar-daddy and has sold his soul to AIPAC and Israel. His comment in the debate the his presidency would usher in 'the New American Century' offered too many flash backs to the Bush regime and was just plain creepy.
The only two GOP candidates with any sort of 'moderate' foreign policy seem to be Paul and Cruz and I use the term moderate advisedly when talking of Cruz. It appears Paul has little chance of going very far. Cruz, to date, seems like a clever tent preacher (or carnie-barker, take your pick).
Things can change, but I am likely to be turning to some weird third party presidential candidate again rather than to have to explain for the next four years why I voted for one of these dolts.
The Globe and Mail Published Thursday, Dec. 17, 2015 6:00AM EST
Donald Trump is only the second-scariest candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. No GOP contender should strike fear into the hearts of reasonable people everywhere more than Ted Cruz, the Canadian-born Texas senator who could emerge as the main beneficiary of the chaos Mr. Trump has visited upon the party.
Since he won his Senate seat in 2012, Mr. Cruz is hands down considered the most self-serving and nakedly ambitious member of Congress, a singular distinction considering the competition on Capitol Hill. Whereas Mr. Trump comes off as a braggadocio and impulsive, Mr. Cruz is a calculating and self-obsessed flamethrower who has deftly harnessed big data to build a diehard following of evangelicals and Tea Partiers. It has made him the favourite to win the Iowa caucuses, the first of the GOP primaries that will winnow the field of contenders.
Mr. Cruz’s biggest “achievement” since arriving in Congress has been to make that already dysfunctional body even more unproductive because 1) he genuinely hates government and 2) he sees obstruction as the key to winning the undying loyalty and dollars of the insurgent masses and hedge fund donors who want to blow up Washington. Well before Mr. Trump showed up, Mr. Cruz had been stoking the Republican civil war that, for now, the flamethrowers are winning.
In 2013, Mr. Cruz led a crusade to shut down the U.S. federal government by blocking a budget bill that included funding for President Barack Obama’s health-care law. Republicans were then a minority in the Senate and had no hope of defunding Obamacare, a measure the President would have vetoed anyway. But Mr. Cruz insisted on holding up the budget bill, leading to a government shutdown that forced a curtailment of some public services and left hundreds of thousands federal employees furloughed and unpaid for 16 days. He called it a victory.
And it was, for him. It helped him amass a mailing list of anti-Obama cranks and anti-government ideologues whose anger he continued to stoke, and whose money he continued to rake in, with endless micro-targeted e-mails and videos. (One video had him “cooking” bacon on the red-hot barrel of an assault rifle, delighting pro-gun types.) He again tried to close down the government this fall by blocking a budget bill that included funding for Planned Parenthood.
Mr. Trump, no slouch at scorched earth policies, called Mr. Cruz “a little bit of a maniac” who lacks the temperament to be president. But that was before the Donald pulled his punches in Tuesday’s debate, suggesting a mutual non-aggression pact. Mr. Cruz is the second choice of a plurality of Trump supporters and he would love to inherit his rival’s database if the Donald fades.
The Cruz campaign has employed the most sophisticated data tools yet, using so-called “psychographic targeting” to tailor pitches to voters based on the personality traits they exhibit on social media. It’s a crassly hypocritical exploitation of personal data for this crusader against the surveillance state, a cause that has made Mr. Cruz the bane of national security hawks in his party.
That clash was clearly on display in Tuesday’s debate. Mr. Cruz carried the flame for the GOP’s isolationist wing, defending military cuts he helped trigger, while Florida senator Marco Rubio argued for an enhanced American role in policing the world and spending untold billions to modernize the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.
If that makes Mr. Rubio sound like the scarier of the two, think again. The Florida senator would by all accounts use U.S. power judiciously, and employ force as a last resort.
Mr. Cruz is against “sticking our nose in foreign entanglements.” He is fine with leaving Syria’s murderous Bashar al-Assad to slaughter his own people. He would “carpet-bomb [the Islamic State] into oblivion” because it is a direct threat to U.S. security. If that bit of bravado excites his base, it is ridiculed by experts for its ignorance of modern military tactics and disregard for its toll in civilian casualties.
Few who have crossed paths with Mr. Cruz seem to like him. Most profess to loathing him.
“I would rather have anyone else be the president of the United States. Anyone,” his college roommate told The Daily Beast. “I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.”"
Clever is clever an manipulating. What politician isn't, well...at least, the manipulating part? A temporary shutdown of the government where everyone affected gets a paid vacation? And they think that's worse than starting a war in the ME?
I wouldn't vote for Cruz but to suggest he is worse than Trump is absurd. Trump has asked Americans to ignore the very values that have made this country America. He is a flaming bigot. With his call for collective punishment of the families of terrorists, he is abandoning the Geneva Conventions and suggesting war crimes. The man is a lunatic suggesting the US should just waltz into the ME nd steal all the oil. Make Mexico pay for a huuuuuge wall? Give me a break. The only positive thing about the Trump candidacy is that most of his lame brained proposals would never see the light of day.
SOUTHWEST ASIA, December 17, 2015 — U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Strikes in Syria
Attack, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted seven strikes in Syria:
-- Near Raqqah, three strikes struck an ISIL financial building, an ISIL headquarters building and an ISIL training camp.
-- Near Hawl, one strike destroyed an ISIL artillery piece.
-- Near Manbij, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and two ISIL bunkers.
-- Near Mara, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and damaged an ISIL fighting position.
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 11 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Fallujah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL sniper position, an ISIL tunnel, two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL rocket-propelled grenade and wounded an ISIL fighter.
-- Near Hit, one strike destroyed an ISIL homemade explosives cache.
-- Near Kirkuk, one strike destroyed an ISIL excavator.
-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck multiple large ISIL tactical units and three suicide bombers and destroyed 12 ISIL machine guns, 13 ISIL fighting positions, six ISIL vehicles and an ISIL vehicle bomb.
-- Near Ramadi, four strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL machine gun, three ISIL fighting positions, five ISIL buildings, three ISIL staging areas and an ISIL vehicle bomb.
-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL machine gun.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.
WASHINGTON, December 17, 2015 — Defense Secretary Ash Carter yesterday discussed with Iraqi leaders ways to increase pressure on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to accelerate coalition progress against the terror group.
In Baghdad, Carter met with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, as well as U.S. and coalition leaders during the visit.
The secretary received a progress update from U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Sean McFarland, the commander of Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, and from the U.S. embassy team.
“So I was able to get an update from him, and also to emphasize to him our desire … to accelerate and strengthen our campaign here,” Carter told reporters traveling with him.
Productive Meetings
Carter said he had productive meetings with the Iraqi prime minister and then the Iraqi defense minister.
“I discussed with them once again the desire of the United States and its other coalition partners to accelerate progress – the kind of progress that the Iraqi forces are exhibiting in Ramadi, building on that success to complete the recapture of Ramadi, and then continue the campaign with the important goal of retaking Mosul as soon as possible,” he said.
Carter made it clear the United States is willing to do more and that U.S. officials are working with coalition partners to provide more support to Iraq.
Partnership With Iraq
“Finally, I reemphasized to the prime minister … that everything we do and the coalition does here in Iraq is subject to the principle of Iraqi sovereignty and therefore his permission,” the secretary said.
During testimony on Capitol Hill last week, Carter told senators that he was prepared to recommend U.S. helicopters and advisors be sent to Ramadi to aid the recapture of that city, if the Iraqi leader asked for them.
“Well, the prime minister did not make any specific requests … in connection with Ramadi,” he said. “However, we did discuss the possibility that circumstances in the future might cause our commanders to advise and his commanders to advise, and for him therefore to approve us doing more things.”
If The Donald is good enough for The Vlad, he's good enough for me !!
*****
Donald Trump gets coveted Vladimir Putin endorsement
posted at 2:41 pm on December 17, 2015 by Taylor Millard
Donald Trump is getting a new endorsement this time from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Via AFP.
“He is a very outstanding man, unquestionably talented,” Putin told journalists after his annual press conference in Moscow.
“It’s not up to us to judge his virtue, that is up to US voters, but he is the absolute leader of the presidential race,” Putin added.
Putin said Russia is ready to work with the United States no matter who is elected president next year. “We are ready to work with any president chosen by the American people.”
Trump has yet to comment on the endorsement, but had previously said he thinks he’d get along well with Putin. Here are his comments from the second GOP debate on the issue.
I would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe — and I may be wrong, in which case I’d probably have to take a different path, but I would get along with a lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with..,I will get along — I think — with Putin, and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable — stable world…I believe that I will get along — we will do — between that, Ukraine, all of the other problems, we won’t have the kind of problems that our country has right now with Russia and many other nations.
So now it appears Putin is at least slightly hoping for a Trump presidency too. Putin has always been cagey when it comes to U.S. Presidents, specifically Barack Obama. He told CBS in September Obama wasn’t weak, but then took a swipe at the Obama Administration a few weeks later. Via The New York Times.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia criticized the United States and others on Tuesday for what he said was their lack of cooperation with the Russian military campaign in Syria, suggesting that they had “mush for brains.”…
“Recently, we have offered the Americans: ‘Give us objects that we shouldn’t target.’ Again, no answer,” he said. “It seems to me that some of our partners have mush for brains.”
Mr. Putin, speaking at a forum for international investors, also said that Washington did not seem interested in a visit he had proposed by a high-level political and military delegation to coordinate actions in Syria. The Russian delegation would be led by the prime minister, Dmitri A. Medvedev, and include senior military and intelligence officials, he said.
Putin’s support of Trump makes a little bit of sense because he’s one of two candidates, the other being Rand Paul, who seem willing to at least talk to him. So it could be a respect thing.......
Congress' half-trillion dollar spending binge... Increases deficit by hundreds of billions... Funds 'climate' deal... Planned Parenthood PRAISES... Makes it 'harder to repeal Obamacare'... Conservatives give pass on deal they despise! SESSIONS: THIS is why voters in 'open rebellion'... AMERICAN WORKER SOLD OUT... Includes $1.6 billion to resettle illegals INSIDE USA... LIMBAUGH: Never a battle. None of this was opposed......Drudge
What bull. Rush for once gets it right when he says (if he said it, you never know with Drudge)
Never a battle. None of this was opposed
Paul Ryan had no more to do with giving this away than anyone of the others in the majority that approved the deal. This deal was struck long before Ryan took over the leadership post. Everyone knew it, well anyone who read anything but Jihad Watch and the AM.
D.C.'s natural inclination is to spend money, the only arguments that arise is on where it is spent. Sequester has been knawing at everyone on both sides of the aisle since it was passed. They were just looking for an excuses get rid of it. It didn't take much. The GOP wanted more money for the military and their constituencies and the Dems wanted more for theirs. The simplest compromise? Get out the checkbook.
No, America's Iran Policy Isn't Beholden to Israel
Trita Parsi says Washington needs a "de-Israelization." But he overstates the influence of Israeli pressure.
Meir Javedanfar
December 16, 2015
In a recent article for the National Interest titled “Can Washington Separate Its Iran Policy From Israel?”, National Iranian American Council president Trita Parsi writes that, “for many on Capitol Hill, the reality is that Iran is primarily viewed through an Israeli lens.” Parsi refers to this as the “Israelization” of America's Iran policy. From this assertion, a number of others follow regarding the impact of Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on America's Iran policy over the past years. These assertions require a response.
First, Parsi claims that when it comes to Israel, Iran had been “pursuing more moderate policies in the 1990’s compared to the previous decade.”
A closer look at some of the policies that the Iranian regime followed in that decade shows the opposite. In fact, Iran was following more aggressive policies towards Israel in the 1990s than the 1980s.
First and foremost, in the 1990s, Iran expanded the number of anti-Israel terror groups that it supported. In the 1980s, Iran financially supported the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hezbollah; Iran also supported Hezbollah militarily. In the next decade, it added Hamas to the list. In 1991, Hamas opened an office in Tehran. In the same year, Iran and Hamas formed an alliance against the Madrid peace talks. In 1994, Iran started to financially back Hamas, to the tune of millions of dollars, joining Syria as one of the few foreign states that financially supported this group.
In the 1990s, both Hamas and PIJ took part in dozens of operations targeting both Israeli civilians and military personnel on Israeli soil. As a financial backer of both Hamas and PIJ, Iran became a stakeholder in an unprecedented number of attacks against Israelis on Israeli soil, which caused far higher casualties in the 1990s than in the preceding decade. Furthermore, Hezbollah, Iran's main ally and proxy in Lebanon, spent the decade expanding its attacks against Israeli targets abroad. These manifested themselves in two major terrorist attacks that took place in Argentina. One attack was against Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, in which twenty-nine people died and 242 people were wounded. This attack came after Israel's assassination of Hezbollah Chief Abbas Musawi in Lebanon in February 1992 (his wife and son were also killed as a result of the attack). The other terror attack was the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994, in which eighty-five people were killed and many were wounded.
Parsi also claims that one of the main reasons why Israel and AIPAC's attitude towards Iran began to shift dramatically in the 1990s was because “Rabin felt that another threat needed to be looming in the horizon,” a threat which he could use to sell the peace process with Arafat at home in Israel.
Did Yitzhak Rabin “need” another threat to be looming on the horizon to sell the Oslo deal at home, as Parsi claims? Oxford Dictionaries defines “need” as to “Require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable.”
A closer look shows that in fact the last thing Rabin “needed” to sell the Palestinian peace deal at home was the Iranian threat manifested in financial and political support for Hamas and PIJ. These two groups were both against the peace process and Israel's existence. More importantly, as mentioned, they carried out numerous suicide attacks and shootings in the 1990s. These attacks made it far more difficult for Rabin to sell his deal with Arafat at home. In fact, they raised political costs for Rabin and the Labor Party. The issue of security was of paramount importance to Israeli voters, and these attacks, a number of which occurred during the implementation of the Oslo peace talks dramatically diminished their sense of security. The Labor Party's rival Likud, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, used this to their advantage. They started a massive TV, radio and newspaper campaign with the key slogan, “Israel wants a secure peace.” As the elections drew closer, there was a spike in the number of suicide bombings, which eroded Shimon Peres's double-digit lead in the polls. He ultimately lost by a small margin to Netanyahu.
Parsi writes that, over the last two years “for many on Capitol Hill, the reality is that Iran is primarily viewed through an Israeli lens.” He goes on to state, “This will be a major problem for President Obama, and for subsequent administrations seeking to sustain the nuclear deal with Iran.”
Israel, through AIPAC and sometimes without it (such as when Netanyahu decided to give a speech to the U.S. Congress in 2015), has tried to influence U.S. policy on Iran. AIPAC has spent millions of dollars to achieve this goal. But to claim that Congress has primarily seen Iran “through an Israeli lens” over the last two years is highly questionable.
Would the Republicans in Congress have agreed with Obama and the Democrats over the Iran nuclear deal if it weren't for Israel or AIPAC? Have the Republicans agreed with Obama on Obamacare, immigration and gun control? Hardly. So why would they have agreed with him over Iran?
There is also the impact of Iranian regime policy on U.S.-Iran relations, which on many occasions has created far more enemies for Iran on Capitol Hill than AIPAC could. This includes the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Tehran and Hezbollah’s attacks on a U.S. Marine barracks in 1983, in which 241 U.S. service personnel were killed. Iran-backed groups in Iraq were reportedly responsible for the deaths of more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers following the American-led invasion of Iraq. As recently as in 2011, the Iranian regime was reportedly planning to blow up a restaurant in the middle of Washington, D.C., in order to assassinate the Saudi ambassador—an attack which would have killed many innocent people.
The United States has certainly made its own mistakes with Iran. Just to name a few, there was the morally repugnant decision by the U.S. to stay quiet, and even help Saddam, while he was using chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. It also took the United States eight long years before it paid compensation to the families of the victims of Iran Air Flight 655, which the United States accidentally shot down in 1988.
Then there is the impact of Iran's domestic politics on its U.S. policies. An Iranian-American dual citizen, Siamak Namazi, was arrested after the recent nuclear deal that many had hoped would moderate Iran's policies. This, alongside hostile statements towards the United States by the supreme leader after the deal, send a strong signal to America that despite Obama's numerous overtures, Iran's powerful hardliners don't want relations with the United States to improve.
There is also Saudi Arabia, which has serious differences with Iran and has tried to pressure the U.S. to attack Iran's nuclear program.
One could say that Iran is viewed partially through Israel's concerns in Capitol Hill. To say that on Capitol Hill Iran is viewed “primarily” through Israeli lenses is saying that Israel's influence is greater than the sum of all other factors which influence how U.S. lawmakers have viewed the Iranian regime. These are factors such as U.S. political polarization, domestic Iranian politics and Iran’s tortured relationship with America, as well as the role of the Saudis. This is a questionable claim to make as it ignores a complex relationship with numerous nuances.
The deal with Iran has been settled, against the best efforts of AIPAC and Netanyahu. The major problem for President Obama, and for subsequent administrations seeking to sustain the nuclear deal with Iran, is not the “Israelization” of America's Iran policy as Parsi claims. Instead, it will be whether Iran and the P5+1 are able to keep and enforce the deal. If Netanyahu and AIPAC could not stop the deal while it was being negotiated, a stage which was far more susceptible to pressure than the post-deal period, they will not be able to stop it after implementation, unless Iran or the P5+1 fail in their commitments.
Parsi refers to Iranian presidents such as Rafsanjani and Rouhani in his article, but he makes no mention of Iran's Holocaust-denying Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his entire article. The supreme leader has the last word on Israel-Palestine issues, just as he had the last word on Iran's nuclear program. To date, he has not stopped calling for the elimination of the state of Israel. These days he is doing it in English, in case there were any doubts.
Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian-Israeli researcher and lecturer. He is a senior research fellow at the IDC Herzliya's Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) and at the Ezri Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at the University of Haifa. Follow him on Twitter: @MeirJa.
Front-runner projects a kind of strength his opponents can't quite match
by Keith Koffler
There are visceral messages conveyed by presidential candidates during debates that can be as important as anything they say.
Richard Nixon was thought to have won the 1960 debates with John Kennedy by those who listened on radio. But those who witnessed Kennedy’s cool demeanor and Nixon’s sweaty visage on their TV screens felt Kennedy had won.
When Ronald Reagan during a 1980 debate demanded to be heard because “I’m paying for this microphone,” his genuine anger and ability to take control of the situation projected strength. When George H.W. Bush glanced at his watch during one of his 1992 debates with Bill Clinton, it confirmed for people the lack of interest and paucity of inspiration that helped sink him against “the man from Hope.”
Donald Trump’s wild appeal to conservatives has always transcended his positions, and during Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate the basis for this appeal was unmistakable. With every gesture, every facial expression, and every statement, Trump projected strength and decisiveness, the qualities that President Obama lacks and that Republicans will require in their next leader.
When former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush repeated his canned line about Trump not insulting his way to the nomination, Trump brushed it off with an “Oh well” smirk.
“He’s a very nice person, but we need toughness,” Trump said of Bush. “Nobody cares,” he said of Jeb’s whole campaign.
When audience members booed Trump’s proposal to track Internet activity in Syria and Iraq, an incredulous Trump faced down the audience — and won.
“I just can’t imagine somebody booing,” he said. “These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you’re — you’re objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don’t think so. I don’t think so.”
Trump attacked his questioners to their faces while feigning some pathos for Bush.
“I think it’s very sad that CNN leads Jeb Bush, Governor Bush, down a road by starting off virtually all the questions, ‘Mr. Trump this, Mister’ — I think it’s very sad,” Trump said.
Many Republicans know the country needs a pugilist to right the country. Several of the other candidates just didn’t seem to come ready to mix it up in the ring.
“This doesn’t do a thing to solve the problems,”proclaimed Carly Fiorino after Trump noted Bush was moving further away during each debate from center stage, where those polling best stand.
“Pretty soon you’re going to be off the end,” Trump quipped.
“It sounds more and more what my daughter said that in the beginning, all the fighting and arguing is not advancing us,” garbled Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Republican voters, who have put Trump at nearly 40 percent, know better. They want a fighter.
Conservatives aren’t worried about whether Trump can check every box on the Edmund Burke list of conservative bona fides. He gets important stuff, like controlling immigration, fighting terrorism and avoiding bad trade deals. Those issues resonate, and he knows it.
What conservatives know is that the country’s situation has grown so dire in so many areas that only a personality with steel, vigor, determination and even ruthlessness can possibly make things right. Getting every detail correct — but not having the stamina or forcefulness to carry out the plan — won’t cut it.
The GOP Establishment is worried about Trump not just because of what he believes, but because they think he can’t win the general election. But what they are missing is that almost everyone has fear about the future. Not just conservatives, but many Democrats, too. And Latinos. And African-Americans. And women. And every other demographic the poobahs think Trump will never appeal to.
“I will do everything in my power to beat Hillary Clinton,” Trump said Tuesday with unequivocal, unreserved sincerity and power.
Listening to it, and watching him, one could not help but believe it and think that he would find a way to make it happen.
The Establishment Republicans are having a good case of the vapors over Trump's "unelectability," BUT,
the bettors (way the best predictors, this far out,) while making The Donald a long-shot to win the nomination, figure him to be the very much the most likely to win the General Election, in the case that he does get the nod.
Hillary is still a significant favorite over both of them (according to Predictwise,) but the gamblers like Trump's chances against her more than they like Rubio's.
Nonsense, I have never used it before not even in jest.
In this case, my comment was not intended for you but rather for Ruf, a person that understands the concept of sarcasm. Had it been intended for you I would have used the sarcasm button again. Also, I would have assured it was couched in words of one syllable in the manner of the Dick and Jane readers.
From the IMA, in response to a Hot Air article, If The Donald is good enough for The Vlad, he's good enough for me !!
Hot Air writes:
Donald Trump gets coveted Vladimir Putin endorsement
posted at 2:41 pm on December 17, 2015 by Taylor Millard
Donald Trump is getting a new endorsement this time from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Via AFP.
You want 'mush for brains' look no further than the author of this article.
Endorsement?
This is what Putin said,
“He is a very outstanding man, unquestionably talented,” Putin told journalists after his annual press conference in Moscow.
“It’s not up to us to judge his virtue, that is up to US voters, but he is the absolute leader of the presidential race,” Putin added.
Putin said Russia is ready to work with the United States no matter who is elected president next year. “We are ready to work with any president chosen by the American people.”
For the illiterate, those with English as second language, and Idaho Engish majors, this translation from Putinese: (Or you could call it a translation from plain English into grade school English, either works)
'Hey, the guy's a billionaire, he must be doing something right. It is up to the American people to choose their own president; however, there is no doubt Trump is currently in the lead. However, your friggin nuts if you think I am going to put my ass on the line predicting or endorsing any of these candidates. It's bad enough I will have to work with one of them when he/she gets elected.'
“They were there, [local commanders] said they were on a training mission,” said one source in the nearby mountain town of Zintan. “Nobody knows details. They are gone now.”
Exactly the kind of mission you used to go on so frequently in your youth, Quirk.
A country, a whole region, in chaos due to an Arab Spring, or some other geo-politcal fuck up, and you and your well trained troop would be on it like a hound dog on scent......
Heavily armed, high tech, some talk of some secret 'training mission', there one minute, no details, gone the next, as in the dead of the night, even in the open desert sunshine.....
It is even possible that Commandante Q himself is the mysterious source in the nearby mountain town of Zintan, putting out a subtle message to D.C., or perhaps a secret order to his troops, possibly even designed to be intentionally confusing to the adversary.
A new release soon to be out based roughly on the life and dangerous times of Commandante Q -
American Experience: American Commandante 2016 PG DVD $24.99Prime Available for Pre-order. This item will be released on January 5, 2016.
Write to Q Productions Box 00000001 Detroit, Michigan
AIPAC and our toxic relationship with Israel is a far greater threat to the US than the brave Hezbollah fighters fighting and dying against ISIS.
ReplyDeleteLebanon's Hezbollah group on Thursday denounced this week's announcement of a new Saudi-led "Islamic military alliance" and the Lebanese prime minister's decision to join it. The Shiite militant group also accused the Sunni kingdom of practicing "state terrorism" and spreading extremist ideology.
ReplyDeleteSaudi Arabia's announcement on Tuesday of a 34-member coalition that includes Lebanon, with a joint operations center based in Riyadh, has caused a split in the tiny Mediterranean country, adding to its sectarian tensions and political divisions.
Being part of such an alliance would inflame two major schisms over Lebanon's political orientation — whether it is aligned with Saudi Arabia and its Western allies in the international arena, and whether it is a Muslim nation.
On Wednesday, Lebanese Prime Minister Tammam Salam, a Sunni, welcomed the Saudi move, saying it is only natural for Lebanon to be part of such an alliance against terror. But Hezbollah and its allies, as well as Christian parties, objected to the coalition.
Hezbollah said Thursday the alliance was a "U.S. project" and aims to create a Sunni armed force in the region to avoid sending U.S. ground troops to conflict areas.
The Shiite group also accused Saudi Arabia of supporting "terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq and Yemen" and said the kingdom is "responsible for spreading extreme terrorist ideology all over the world."
Hezbollah said Prime Minister Salam's remarks "represent his personal opinion" and were not binding because the decision was made outside Cabinet.
The Lebanese Foreign Ministry, led by a member of a party allied with Hezbollah, said Wednesday that it had no knowledge of the Saudi coalition before it was announced and that the decision "infringes on the ministry's prerogatives."
.
DeleteLebanon has since 'said' that the Sunni force would not be used against Hezbollah.
We shall see.
.
.
DeleteIt is a remarkable coincidence that the congressional vote on Hezbollah occurred so close to the formation of the Sunni force.
Was the Washington abeyance to the Lobby, a quid pro quo with the Sunni Gulf States, r merely coincidence?
.
.
DeleteWas it Washington's...
.
Nobody was against this bill. Even the Israelis aren't that good.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like it call your congressional representatives.
Ask why they voted for it.
Whatever happened to WiO ?
DeleteI certainly miss that good fellow.
Hope he is well.
.
ReplyDeleteThese actions by the US are one more reason why I am unlikely to vote for either major party's candidates in the 2016 election.
The vote indicates US resolve to continue its continued meddling in the ME. It is not only a continuance of the neocon dream, but also a sop to Israel and AIPAC. It also reflects the refusal of both parties to recognize and call out the fountainhead of terrorism in the world, Saudi Arabia.
As for the major candidates (which admittedly could change) Hillary is corrupt, a habitual liar, and based on her performance and inclinations, a raging neocon. Trump has outlined a platform based on bigotry, war crimes, and lunacy. Carson is light weight, ill-informed, and in-decisive. Rubio represents the second-coming of GWB, a raging neocon just slightly this side of Lindsay Graham. He is in the pocket of a billionaire sugar-daddy and has sold his soul to AIPAC and Israel. His comment in the debate the his presidency would usher in 'the New American Century' offered too many flash backs to the Bush regime and was just plain creepy.
The only two GOP candidates with any sort of 'moderate' foreign policy seem to be Paul and Cruz and I use the term moderate advisedly when talking of Cruz. It appears Paul has little chance of going very far. Cruz, to date, seems like a clever tent preacher (or carnie-barker, take your pick).
Things can change, but I am likely to be turning to some weird third party presidential candidate again rather than to have to explain for the next four years why I voted for one of these dolts.
.
Running true to form, I see.
DeleteAnother wasted vote, but if it makes you feel superior and special it is certainly worth it to you, if not to anyone else.
We all need, from time to time, to give a hearty Nietzschean YES !! to ourselves !
I call it the mass haggard man's Affirmative Action.
Gopher it.
"Cruz trumps Trump for scary
ReplyDeleteKonrad Yakabuski
The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Dec. 17, 2015 6:00AM EST
Donald Trump is only the second-scariest candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. No GOP contender should strike fear into the hearts of reasonable people everywhere more than Ted Cruz, the Canadian-born Texas senator who could emerge as the main beneficiary of the chaos Mr. Trump has visited upon the party.
Since he won his Senate seat in 2012, Mr. Cruz is hands down considered the most self-serving and nakedly ambitious member of Congress, a singular distinction considering the competition on Capitol Hill. Whereas Mr. Trump comes off as a braggadocio and impulsive, Mr. Cruz is a calculating and self-obsessed flamethrower who has deftly harnessed big data to build a diehard following of evangelicals and Tea Partiers. It has made him the favourite to win the Iowa caucuses, the first of the GOP primaries that will winnow the field of contenders.
Mr. Cruz’s biggest “achievement” since arriving in Congress has been to make that already dysfunctional body even more unproductive because 1) he genuinely hates government and 2) he sees obstruction as the key to winning the undying loyalty and dollars of the insurgent masses and hedge fund donors who want to blow up Washington. Well before Mr. Trump showed up, Mr. Cruz had been stoking the Republican civil war that, for now, the flamethrowers are winning.
In 2013, Mr. Cruz led a crusade to shut down the U.S. federal government by blocking a budget bill that included funding for President Barack Obama’s health-care law. Republicans were then a minority in the Senate and had no hope of defunding Obamacare, a measure the President would have vetoed anyway. But Mr. Cruz insisted on holding up the budget bill, leading to a government shutdown that forced a curtailment of some public services and left hundreds of thousands federal employees furloughed and unpaid for 16 days. He called it a victory.
And it was, for him. It helped him amass a mailing list of anti-Obama cranks and anti-government ideologues whose anger he continued to stoke, and whose money he continued to rake in, with endless micro-targeted e-mails and videos. (One video had him “cooking” bacon on the red-hot barrel of an assault rifle, delighting pro-gun types.) He again tried to close down the government this fall by blocking a budget bill that included funding for Planned Parenthood.
DeleteMr. Trump, no slouch at scorched earth policies, called Mr. Cruz “a little bit of a maniac” who lacks the temperament to be president. But that was before the Donald pulled his punches in Tuesday’s debate, suggesting a mutual non-aggression pact. Mr. Cruz is the second choice of a plurality of Trump supporters and he would love to inherit his rival’s database if the Donald fades.
The Cruz campaign has employed the most sophisticated data tools yet, using so-called “psychographic targeting” to tailor pitches to voters based on the personality traits they exhibit on social media. It’s a crassly hypocritical exploitation of personal data for this crusader against the surveillance state, a cause that has made Mr. Cruz the bane of national security hawks in his party.
That clash was clearly on display in Tuesday’s debate. Mr. Cruz carried the flame for the GOP’s isolationist wing, defending military cuts he helped trigger, while Florida senator Marco Rubio argued for an enhanced American role in policing the world and spending untold billions to modernize the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal.
If that makes Mr. Rubio sound like the scarier of the two, think again. The Florida senator would by all accounts use U.S. power judiciously, and employ force as a last resort.
Mr. Cruz is against “sticking our nose in foreign entanglements.” He is fine with leaving Syria’s murderous Bashar al-Assad to slaughter his own people. He would “carpet-bomb [the Islamic State] into oblivion” because it is a direct threat to U.S. security. If that bit of bravado excites his base, it is ridiculed by experts for its ignorance of modern military tactics and disregard for its toll in civilian casualties.
Few who have crossed paths with Mr. Cruz seem to like him. Most profess to loathing him.
“I would rather have anyone else be the president of the United States. Anyone,” his college roommate told The Daily Beast. “I would rather pick somebody from the phone book.”"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/cruz-trumps-trump-for-scary/article27791123/
.
DeleteIdiotic.
Clever is clever an manipulating. What politician isn't, well...at least, the manipulating part? A temporary shutdown of the government where everyone affected gets a paid vacation? And they think that's worse than starting a war in the ME?
I wouldn't vote for Cruz but to suggest he is worse than Trump is absurd. Trump has asked Americans to ignore the very values that have made this country America. He is a flaming bigot. With his call for collective punishment of the families of terrorists, he is abandoning the Geneva Conventions and suggesting war crimes. The man is a lunatic suggesting the US should just waltz into the ME nd steal all the oil. Make Mexico pay for a huuuuuge wall? Give me a break. The only positive thing about the Trump candidacy is that most of his lame brained proposals would never see the light of day.
.
DeleteCruz is clever and manipulating...
.
.
DeleteThe Florida senator would by all accounts use U.S. power judiciously, and employ force as a last resort...
Too funny.
.
I'm pissed off at Paul Ryan myself.
DeleteWhat the hell, we'd be just as well off with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.
And Paul is growing a beard.......
SOUTHWEST ASIA, December 17, 2015 — U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.
ReplyDeleteOfficials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Strikes in Syria
Attack, bomber and remotely piloted aircraft conducted seven strikes in Syria:
-- Near Raqqah, three strikes struck an ISIL financial building, an ISIL headquarters building and an ISIL training camp.
-- Near Hawl, one strike destroyed an ISIL artillery piece.
-- Near Manbij, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and two ISIL bunkers.
-- Near Mara, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and damaged an ISIL fighting position.
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 11 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Fallujah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL sniper position, an ISIL tunnel, two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL rocket-propelled grenade and wounded an ISIL fighter.
-- Near Hit, one strike destroyed an ISIL homemade explosives cache.
-- Near Kirkuk, one strike destroyed an ISIL excavator.
-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck multiple large ISIL tactical units and three suicide bombers and destroyed 12 ISIL machine guns, 13 ISIL fighting positions, six ISIL vehicles and an ISIL vehicle bomb.
-- Near Ramadi, four strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL machine gun, three ISIL fighting positions, five ISIL buildings, three ISIL staging areas and an ISIL vehicle bomb.
-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL machine gun.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.
DOD
Not a single bed down position on the list in either Iraq or Syria.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell ?
The only way to win this thing is to deny ISIS a good night's sleep.
WASHINGTON, December 17, 2015 — Defense Secretary Ash Carter yesterday discussed with Iraqi leaders ways to increase pressure on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to accelerate coalition progress against the terror group.
ReplyDeleteIn Baghdad, Carter met with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, as well as U.S. and coalition leaders during the visit.
The secretary received a progress update from U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Sean McFarland, the commander of Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, and from the U.S. embassy team.
“So I was able to get an update from him, and also to emphasize to him our desire … to accelerate and strengthen our campaign here,” Carter told reporters traveling with him.
Productive Meetings
Carter said he had productive meetings with the Iraqi prime minister and then the Iraqi defense minister.
“I discussed with them once again the desire of the United States and its other coalition partners to accelerate progress – the kind of progress that the Iraqi forces are exhibiting in Ramadi, building on that success to complete the recapture of Ramadi, and then continue the campaign with the important goal of retaking Mosul as soon as possible,” he said.
Carter made it clear the United States is willing to do more and that U.S. officials are working with coalition partners to provide more support to Iraq.
Partnership With Iraq
“Finally, I reemphasized to the prime minister … that everything we do and the coalition does here in Iraq is subject to the principle of Iraqi sovereignty and therefore his permission,” the secretary said.
During testimony on Capitol Hill last week, Carter told senators that he was prepared to recommend U.S. helicopters and advisors be sent to Ramadi to aid the recapture of that city, if the Iraqi leader asked for them.
“Well, the prime minister did not make any specific requests … in connection with Ramadi,” he said. “However, we did discuss the possibility that circumstances in the future might cause our commanders to advise and his commanders to advise, and for him therefore to approve us doing more things.”
You figure it out, my head's starting to hurt
You figure it out, my head's starting to hurt
Delete:)
heh
Me too.....
I've been saying Merry Christmas !! to all I meet in the stores, on the street, on the phone.....just to piss the politically correct people off.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas to you all.....
Especially to Rufus !
If The Donald is good enough for The Vlad, he's good enough for me !!
ReplyDelete*****
Donald Trump gets coveted Vladimir Putin endorsement
posted at 2:41 pm on December 17, 2015 by Taylor Millard
Donald Trump is getting a new endorsement this time from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Via AFP.
“He is a very outstanding man, unquestionably talented,” Putin told journalists after his annual press conference in Moscow.
“It’s not up to us to judge his virtue, that is up to US voters, but he is the absolute leader of the presidential race,” Putin added.
Putin said Russia is ready to work with the United States no matter who is elected president next year. “We are ready to work with any president chosen by the American people.”
Trump has yet to comment on the endorsement, but had previously said he thinks he’d get along well with Putin. Here are his comments from the second GOP debate on the issue.
I would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe — and I may be wrong, in which case I’d probably have to take a different path, but I would get along with a lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with..,I will get along — I think — with Putin, and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable — stable world…I believe that I will get along — we will do — between that, Ukraine, all of the other problems, we won’t have the kind of problems that our country has right now with Russia and many other nations.
So now it appears Putin is at least slightly hoping for a Trump presidency too. Putin has always been cagey when it comes to U.S. Presidents, specifically Barack Obama. He told CBS in September Obama wasn’t weak, but then took a swipe at the Obama Administration a few weeks later. Via The New York Times.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia criticized the United States and others on Tuesday for what he said was their lack of cooperation with the Russian military campaign in Syria, suggesting that they had “mush for brains.”…
“Recently, we have offered the Americans: ‘Give us objects that we shouldn’t target.’ Again, no answer,” he said. “It seems to me that some of our partners have mush for brains.”
Mr. Putin, speaking at a forum for international investors, also said that Washington did not seem interested in a visit he had proposed by a high-level political and military delegation to coordinate actions in Syria. The Russian delegation would be led by the prime minister, Dmitri A. Medvedev, and include senior military and intelligence officials, he said.
Putin’s support of Trump makes a little bit of sense because he’s one of two candidates, the other being Rand Paul, who seem willing to at least talk to him. So it could be a respect thing.......
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/17/donald-trump-gets-coveted-vladimir-putin-endorsement/
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete.
DeleteDamn, Bob. Learn to read English. Try to understand what Putin said not what Hot Air told you he said.
Geez, get with the program.
.
ReplyDeleteCongress' half-trillion dollar spending binge...
Increases deficit by hundreds of billions...
Funds 'climate' deal...
Planned Parenthood PRAISES...
Makes it 'harder to repeal Obamacare'...
Conservatives give pass on deal they despise!
SESSIONS: THIS is why voters in 'open rebellion'...
AMERICAN WORKER SOLD OUT...
Includes $1.6 billion to resettle illegals INSIDE USA...
LIMBAUGH: Never a battle. None of this was opposed......Drudge
RYAN GIVES IT ALL AWAY.....Drudge
Nice pic of Paul Pelosi in his new beard.
.
DeleteConservatives give pass on deal they despise!
What bull. Rush for once gets it right when he says (if he said it, you never know with Drudge)
Never a battle. None of this was opposed
Paul Ryan had no more to do with giving this away than anyone of the others in the majority that approved the deal. This deal was struck long before Ryan took over the leadership post. Everyone knew it, well anyone who read anything but Jihad Watch and the AM.
D.C.'s natural inclination is to spend money, the only arguments that arise is on where it is spent. Sequester has been knawing at everyone on both sides of the aisle since it was passed. They were just looking for an excuses get rid of it. It didn't take much. The GOP wanted more money for the military and their constituencies and the Dems wanted more for theirs. The simplest compromise? Get out the checkbook.
.
No, America's Iran Policy Isn't Beholden to Israel
ReplyDeleteTrita Parsi says Washington needs a "de-Israelization." But he overstates the influence of Israeli pressure.
Meir Javedanfar
December 16, 2015
In a recent article for the National Interest titled “Can Washington Separate Its Iran Policy From Israel?”, National Iranian American Council president Trita Parsi writes that, “for many on Capitol Hill, the reality is that Iran is primarily viewed through an Israeli lens.” Parsi refers to this as the “Israelization” of America's Iran policy. From this assertion, a number of others follow regarding the impact of Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on America's Iran policy over the past years. These assertions require a response.
First, Parsi claims that when it comes to Israel, Iran had been “pursuing more moderate policies in the 1990’s compared to the previous decade.”
A closer look at some of the policies that the Iranian regime followed in that decade shows the opposite. In fact, Iran was following more aggressive policies towards Israel in the 1990s than the 1980s.
First and foremost, in the 1990s, Iran expanded the number of anti-Israel terror groups that it supported. In the 1980s, Iran financially supported the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hezbollah; Iran also supported Hezbollah militarily. In the next decade, it added Hamas to the list. In 1991, Hamas opened an office in Tehran. In the same year, Iran and Hamas formed an alliance against the Madrid peace talks. In 1994, Iran started to financially back Hamas, to the tune of millions of dollars, joining Syria as one of the few foreign states that financially supported this group.
In the 1990s, both Hamas and PIJ took part in dozens of operations targeting both Israeli civilians and military personnel on Israeli soil. As a financial backer of both Hamas and PIJ, Iran became a stakeholder in an unprecedented number of attacks against Israelis on Israeli soil, which caused far higher casualties in the 1990s than in the preceding decade. Furthermore, Hezbollah, Iran's main ally and proxy in Lebanon, spent the decade expanding its attacks against Israeli targets abroad. These manifested themselves in two major terrorist attacks that took place in Argentina. One attack was against Israel's embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, in which twenty-nine people died and 242 people were wounded. This attack came after Israel's assassination of Hezbollah Chief Abbas Musawi in Lebanon in February 1992 (his wife and son were also killed as a result of the attack). The other terror attack was the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994, in which eighty-five people were killed and many were wounded.
Parsi also claims that one of the main reasons why Israel and AIPAC's attitude towards Iran began to shift dramatically in the 1990s was because “Rabin felt that another threat needed to be looming in the horizon,” a threat which he could use to sell the peace process with Arafat at home in Israel.
DeleteDid Yitzhak Rabin “need” another threat to be looming on the horizon to sell the Oslo deal at home, as Parsi claims? Oxford Dictionaries defines “need” as to “Require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable.”
A closer look shows that in fact the last thing Rabin “needed” to sell the Palestinian peace deal at home was the Iranian threat manifested in financial and political support for Hamas and PIJ. These two groups were both against the peace process and Israel's existence. More importantly, as mentioned, they carried out numerous suicide attacks and shootings in the 1990s. These attacks made it far more difficult for Rabin to sell his deal with Arafat at home. In fact, they raised political costs for Rabin and the Labor Party. The issue of security was of paramount importance to Israeli voters, and these attacks, a number of which occurred during the implementation of the Oslo peace talks dramatically diminished their sense of security. The Labor Party's rival Likud, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, used this to their advantage. They started a massive TV, radio and newspaper campaign with the key slogan, “Israel wants a secure peace.” As the elections drew closer, there was a spike in the number of suicide bombings, which eroded Shimon Peres's double-digit lead in the polls. He ultimately lost by a small margin to Netanyahu.
Parsi writes that, over the last two years “for many on Capitol Hill, the reality is that Iran is primarily viewed through an Israeli lens.” He goes on to state, “This will be a major problem for President Obama, and for subsequent administrations seeking to sustain the nuclear deal with Iran.”
Israel, through AIPAC and sometimes without it (such as when Netanyahu decided to give a speech to the U.S. Congress in 2015), has tried to influence U.S. policy on Iran. AIPAC has spent millions of dollars to achieve this goal. But to claim that Congress has primarily seen Iran “through an Israeli lens” over the last two years is highly questionable.
Would the Republicans in Congress have agreed with Obama and the Democrats over the Iran nuclear deal if it weren't for Israel or AIPAC? Have the Republicans agreed with Obama on Obamacare, immigration and gun control? Hardly. So why would they have agreed with him over Iran?
DeleteThere is also the impact of Iranian regime policy on U.S.-Iran relations, which on many occasions has created far more enemies for Iran on Capitol Hill than AIPAC could. This includes the 1979 takeover of the American embassy in Tehran and Hezbollah’s attacks on a U.S. Marine barracks in 1983, in which 241 U.S. service personnel were killed. Iran-backed groups in Iraq were reportedly responsible for the deaths of more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers following the American-led invasion of Iraq. As recently as in 2011, the Iranian regime was reportedly planning to blow up a restaurant in the middle of Washington, D.C., in order to assassinate the Saudi ambassador—an attack which would have killed many innocent people.
The United States has certainly made its own mistakes with Iran. Just to name a few, there was the morally repugnant decision by the U.S. to stay quiet, and even help Saddam, while he was using chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. It also took the United States eight long years before it paid compensation to the families of the victims of Iran Air Flight 655, which the United States accidentally shot down in 1988.
Then there is the impact of Iran's domestic politics on its U.S. policies. An Iranian-American dual citizen, Siamak Namazi, was arrested after the recent nuclear deal that many had hoped would moderate Iran's policies. This, alongside hostile statements towards the United States by the supreme leader after the deal, send a strong signal to America that despite Obama's numerous overtures, Iran's powerful hardliners don't want relations with the United States to improve.
There is also Saudi Arabia, which has serious differences with Iran and has tried to pressure the U.S. to attack Iran's nuclear program.
One could say that Iran is viewed partially through Israel's concerns in Capitol Hill. To say that on Capitol Hill Iran is viewed “primarily” through Israeli lenses is saying that Israel's influence is greater than the sum of all other factors which influence how U.S. lawmakers have viewed the Iranian regime. These are factors such as U.S. political polarization, domestic Iranian politics and Iran’s tortured relationship with America, as well as the role of the Saudis. This is a questionable claim to make as it ignores a complex relationship with numerous nuances.
DeleteThe deal with Iran has been settled, against the best efforts of AIPAC and Netanyahu. The major problem for President Obama, and for subsequent administrations seeking to sustain the nuclear deal with Iran, is not the “Israelization” of America's Iran policy as Parsi claims. Instead, it will be whether Iran and the P5+1 are able to keep and enforce the deal. If Netanyahu and AIPAC could not stop the deal while it was being negotiated, a stage which was far more susceptible to pressure than the post-deal period, they will not be able to stop it after implementation, unless Iran or the P5+1 fail in their commitments.
Parsi refers to Iranian presidents such as Rafsanjani and Rouhani in his article, but he makes no mention of Iran's Holocaust-denying Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his entire article. The supreme leader has the last word on Israel-Palestine issues, just as he had the last word on Iran's nuclear program. To date, he has not stopped calling for the elimination of the state of Israel. These days he is doing it in English, in case there were any doubts.
Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian-Israeli researcher and lecturer. He is a senior research fellow at the IDC Herzliya's Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) and at the Ezri Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at the University of Haifa. Follow him on Twitter: @MeirJa.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/no-americas-iran-policy-isnt-beholden-israel-14631?page=show
Trump’s Commanding Performance
ReplyDeleteFront-runner projects a kind of strength his opponents can't quite match
by Keith Koffler
There are visceral messages conveyed by presidential candidates during debates that can be as important as anything they say.
Richard Nixon was thought to have won the 1960 debates with John Kennedy by those who listened on radio. But those who witnessed Kennedy’s cool demeanor and Nixon’s sweaty visage on their TV screens felt Kennedy had won.
When Ronald Reagan during a 1980 debate demanded to be heard because “I’m paying for this microphone,” his genuine anger and ability to take control of the situation projected strength. When George H.W. Bush glanced at his watch during one of his 1992 debates with Bill Clinton, it confirmed for people the lack of interest and paucity of inspiration that helped sink him against “the man from Hope.”
Donald Trump’s wild appeal to conservatives has always transcended his positions, and during Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate the basis for this appeal was unmistakable. With every gesture, every facial expression, and every statement, Trump projected strength and decisiveness, the qualities that President Obama lacks and that Republicans will require in their next leader.
When former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush repeated his canned line about Trump not insulting his way to the nomination, Trump brushed it off with an “Oh well” smirk.
“He’s a very nice person, but we need toughness,” Trump said of Bush. “Nobody cares,” he said of Jeb’s whole campaign.
When audience members booed Trump’s proposal to track Internet activity in Syria and Iraq, an incredulous Trump faced down the audience — and won.
“I just can’t imagine somebody booing,” he said. “These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you’re — you’re objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don’t think so. I don’t think so.”
The crowd applauded its own dressing down.
Trump attacked his questioners to their faces while feigning some pathos for Bush.
Delete“I think it’s very sad that CNN leads Jeb Bush, Governor Bush, down a road by starting off virtually all the questions, ‘Mr. Trump this, Mister’ — I think it’s very sad,” Trump said.
Many Republicans know the country needs a pugilist to right the country. Several of the other candidates just didn’t seem to come ready to mix it up in the ring.
“This doesn’t do a thing to solve the problems,”proclaimed Carly Fiorino after Trump noted Bush was moving further away during each debate from center stage, where those polling best stand.
“Pretty soon you’re going to be off the end,” Trump quipped.
“It sounds more and more what my daughter said that in the beginning, all the fighting and arguing is not advancing us,” garbled Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Republican voters, who have put Trump at nearly 40 percent, know better. They want a fighter.
Conservatives aren’t worried about whether Trump can check every box on the Edmund Burke list of conservative bona fides. He gets important stuff, like controlling immigration, fighting terrorism and avoiding bad trade deals. Those issues resonate, and he knows it.
What conservatives know is that the country’s situation has grown so dire in so many areas that only a personality with steel, vigor, determination and even ruthlessness can possibly make things right. Getting every detail correct — but not having the stamina or forcefulness to carry out the plan — won’t cut it.
The GOP Establishment is worried about Trump not just because of what he believes, but because they think he can’t win the general election. But what they are missing is that almost everyone has fear about the future. Not just conservatives, but many Democrats, too. And Latinos. And African-Americans. And women. And every other demographic the poobahs think Trump will never appeal to.
“I will do everything in my power to beat Hillary Clinton,” Trump said Tuesday with unequivocal, unreserved sincerity and power.
Listening to it, and watching him, one could not help but believe it and think that he would find a way to make it happen.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trumps-commanding-performance/
If you like this, read
Trump Makes Politics Fun Again
The Donald really is putting some fun back in politics.
DeleteIt's been a long time.....
.
DeleteThe Donald really is putting some fun back in politics.
Well, fun if you consider clowns fun.
Trump's act is part Triumph the insult dog and part Muggs the chimp.
When he speaks he is bizarre and when he stands there he can't help but mug like some comedy actor off Telemundo.
.
:)
DeleteHe reminds me of you, that's why I kinda like him.
The Establishment Republicans are having a good case of the vapors over Trump's "unelectability," BUT,
ReplyDeletethe bettors (way the best predictors, this far out,) while making The Donald a long-shot to win the nomination, figure him to be the very much the most likely to win the General Election, in the case that he does get the nod.
If you divide Trump's chance of winning the General Election by his chance of winning the nomination, you come out with
Delete10 / 22 = 0.45
A 45% chance of winning the election if nominated.
Rubio, on the other hand, is 15 / 36 = 41.6%
DeleteA 41.6% chance of winning the GE in nominated
If nominated
Delete.
DeleteI would be willing to take that bet especially against Trump. If I'm wrong, I can always think about partying down with Trudeau up in Canada.
.
Hillary is still a significant favorite over both of them (according to Predictwise,) but the gamblers like Trump's chances against her more than they like Rubio's.
DeletePredictwise
Quick plays the old "if X is elected I'm moving to Canada" card.
DeleteSo early, too.
(he plays this every four years, folks, and hasn't moved an inch in fifty)
Delete.
DeleteNonsense, I have never used it before not even in jest.
In this case, my comment was not intended for you but rather for Ruf, a person that understands the concept of sarcasm. Had it been intended for you I would have used the sarcasm button again. Also, I would have assured it was couched in words of one syllable in the manner of the Dick and Jane readers.
.
I'll take your word for that, if you insist.
DeleteI can hardly think of anyone I know who hasn't threatened to emigrate if some X is elected.
They are all still in the states, though.
.
DeleteI can hardly think of anyone I know who hasn't threatened to emigrate if some X is elected.
I can believe that.
.
.
ReplyDeleteFrom the IMA, in response to a Hot Air article, If The Donald is good enough for The Vlad, he's good enough for me !!
Hot Air writes:
Donald Trump gets coveted Vladimir Putin endorsement
posted at 2:41 pm on December 17, 2015 by Taylor Millard
Donald Trump is getting a new endorsement this time from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Via AFP.
You want 'mush for brains' look no further than the author of this article.
Endorsement?
This is what Putin said,
“He is a very outstanding man, unquestionably talented,” Putin told journalists after his annual press conference in Moscow.
“It’s not up to us to judge his virtue, that is up to US voters, but he is the absolute leader of the presidential race,” Putin added.
Putin said Russia is ready to work with the United States no matter who is elected president next year. “We are ready to work with any president chosen by the American people.”
For the illiterate, those with English as second language, and Idaho Engish majors, this translation from Putinese: (Or you could call it a translation from plain English into grade school English, either works)
'Hey, the guy's a billionaire, he must be doing something right. It is up to the American people to choose their own president; however, there is no doubt Trump is currently in the lead. However, your friggin nuts if you think I am going to put my ass on the line predicting or endorsing any of these candidates. It's bad enough I will have to work with one of them when he/she gets elected.'
Hot Air shouts: Ringing endorsement!
And the IMA chants: Good enough for me.
Lordy.
.
Pooty says our esteemed President O'bumble has mush for brains and that Trump is a very outstanding man, unquestionably talented, and you take issue ?
DeleteLordy, what IS becoming of you ?
.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't commenting on Putin. I was commenting on Hot Air and you.
Why are you so easily confused?
.
Well hell, why didn't you just say so then ?
Delete.
DeleteYou have to get back to you 'English as a Second Language" classes.
.
NOAA Relies On 'Compromised' Thermometers That Inflate 'Warming'...Drudge
ReplyDeleteAha !
The old thermometer trick, once again.
Fugitive monkey on the run because was bullied......Drudge
ReplyDeleteThis kinda reminds me of threats to go to Canada if one doesn't get one's way in an election......
Sweden: Muslim Migrants Batter Gay Man to Death, Wrap Snake Around His Neck.....Drudge
ReplyDeleteSaudi to behead teen for attending protest.....Drudge
ReplyDeleteGET IT ON THE GO: DRUDGE FOR IPHONE.....Drudge
Drudge, the beating heart of the American press !
No opinions, no b.s.
Delete.
DeleteNo give a shit whether true or not.
.
.
DeleteFountainhead of the conspiracy blogs.
.
That's a compliment.
DeleteWe've learned from the rat that everything that happens is a conspiracy.
.
ReplyDeleteIt just gets better and better.
From the Guardian,
Libya
Secret US mission in Libya Revealed after Air Force Posted Pictures on Facebook
.
“They were there, [local commanders] said they were on a training mission,” said one source in the nearby mountain town of Zintan. “Nobody knows details. They are gone now.”
DeleteExactly the kind of mission you used to go on so frequently in your youth, Quirk.
A country, a whole region, in chaos due to an Arab Spring, or some other geo-politcal fuck up,
and you and your well trained troop would be on it like a hound dog on scent......
Heavily armed, high tech, some talk of some secret 'training mission', there one minute, no details, gone the next, as in the dead of the night, even in the open desert sunshine.....
Libya will soon be put to rights.
It is even possible that Commandante Q himself is the mysterious source in the nearby mountain town of Zintan, putting out a subtle message to D.C., or perhaps a secret order to his troops, possibly even designed to be intentionally confusing to the adversary.
DeleteA new release soon to be out based roughly on the life and dangerous times of Commandante Q -
American Experience: American Commandante 2016
PG
DVD
$24.99Prime
Available for Pre-order. This item will be released on January 5, 2016.
Write to Q Productions
Box 00000001
Detroit, Michigan
.
DeleteWe didn't have Facebook back then. We used runners.
.
Both beat the old smoke signals.
Delete