GOADING GULLIBLE AMERICA INTO WAR
By: Patrick J. Buchanan
3/22/2013 02:48 PM
3/22/2013 02:48 PM
As President Obama departed for Israel, there came a startling report. Bashar Assad’s regime had used poison gas on Syrian rebels.
Two Israeli Cabinet members claimed credible evidence. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said, “It’s clear for us that (gas is) being used. … This … should be on the table in the discussions.”
Yet, 72 hours later, the United States still cannot confirm that gas was used, and Syria and Russia have called on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to investigate whether it was used, and if so, by whom.
What’s going on here?
It does not require Inspector Clouseau to surmise this may be a fabrication to stampede the ever-gullible Americans into plunging into Syria to win the war for the al-Qaida-saturated Syrian rebels.
But sucking America into Syria’s civil war is only a near-term goal for the War Party, which is after larger game — greasing the skids for a U.S. war on Iran.
And lest we underestimate the War Party, the likelihood is they will get their war. For they have already gotten Obama to make concessions that are steering us inexorably toward such a war.
First, Obama was persuaded to declare it U.S. policy that, where Iran’s uranium-enrichment program is concerned, “All options are on the table!” Translation: Absent major concessions by Iran, proving she is not seeking a nuclear weapon, war against Iran is in the cards.
Yet, even as Obama parrots the mantra, “All options are on the table,” he has been persuaded to take off the table the option that won the Cold War, the George Kennan option of containment and deterrence.
Obama has been goaded into proclaiming that though America contained an evil empire that spanned 13 time zones and possessed thousands of nukes, containment cannot work with Iran.
Why not? Because the ayatollah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, we are solemnly instructed, are religious fanatics who could easily opt for committing collective suicide should they get a bomb — by using that bomb on us.
This, of course, is to attribute to Iran’s leaders an insanity they have never exhibited. Not in memory has Iran started a war. Saddam attacked Iran, not the other way around. When the Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, Ayatollah Khomeini himself ordered the Iraq war ended for fear America was about to intervene on Baghdad’s side.
Now we come to the sinister role of the U.S. Senate in setting the table for war. Consider what Senate Joint Resolution 65, crafted at AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, and now being shopped around for signing by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Robert Menendez, does.
SR 65 radically alters U.S. policy by declaring it to be “the policy of the United States … to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy.”
Obama’s policy — no nuclear weapons in Iran — is tossed out. Substituted for it in SR 65 is Bibi Netanyahu’s policy — “no nuclear weapons capability” in Iran.
Now, as Iran already has that “capability” — as does Germany, Japan, South Korea and other nations who have forsworn nuclear weapons — what SR 65 does is authorize the United States to attack Iran — to stop her from what she is doing now. Yet, according to all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran does not have a nuclear bomb program.
Critically, SR 65 goes further and “urges that if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should … provide diplomatic, military and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people and existence.”
Translation: Should Bibi attack Iran, the Senate urges the U.S. military to join in that attack. SR 65 is a blank check to Bibi to go to war with Iran, with a U.S. Senate commitment to join him.
Coupled with House Resolution 850, which calls for crushing new sanctions, SR 65 is designed to so enrage and humiliate Iran that her delegates walk out of negotiations — and war inevitably ensues.
Here then is War Party calendar and countdown.
First, rule out containment and deterrence of Iran, though that policy won the Cold War. Second, rule in a U.S. war on Iran if Tehran does not yield to all our demands in nuclear negotiations.
Third, ensure the negotiations fail by repeated insults, threats, sanctions, and intolerable demands that so humiliate the Iranians that, enraged, they say “to hell with it” and walk out of the talks.
Then, by default, the last “option” left for dealing with Iran — even if she still has not tested a bomb or enriched uranium to bomb grade — will be U.S. air strikes on Fordow and Natanz, cheered on by a War Party that dreams of this day and that war.
Preventing another generation of war dead delivered to Dover should be the first priority of American patriots.
What we have going is a clash of civilizations, if we can call them that, and no one knows what to do. It is not all our fault, as you imply.ReplyDelete
The Iranians could join the civilized world, like the
Swedes, if they wished.
Who is the War Party?
Who are their members
You have raised this question on two or three separate streams now.
Definition of PARTY
1: a person or group taking one side of a question, dispute, or contest
2: a group of persons organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government
3: a person or group participating in an action or affair (a mountain-climbing party) (a party to the transaction).
The War Party in the US is made up those dicks who have never seen a war they didn't like and who aggressively argue for war (or whatever the euphemism of the day is for war) at the drop of a hat.
If you don't know who they are, you probably shouldn't be taking part in the discussion.
This is non sense.Delete
3: a person or group participating in an action or affair (a mountain-climbing party) (a party to the transaction).
A mountain climbing party.
The War Party in the US is made up those dicks who have never seen a war they didn't like and who aggressively argue for war (or whatever the euphemism of the day is for war) at the drop of a hat.
Like Wilson, and Roosevelt, and Eisenhower and poor old Bush.
War policy – World War I
Main article: American entry into World War I
Wilson spent 1914 through to the beginning of 1917 trying to keep America out of the war in Europe. He offered to be a mediator, but neither the Allies nor the Central Powers took his requests seriously. Republicans, led by Theodore Roosevelt, strongly criticized Wilson's refusal to build up the U.S. Army in anticipation of the threat of war. Wilson won the support of the peace element (especially women and churches) by arguing that an army buildup would provoke war. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, whose pacifist recommendations were ignored by Wilson, resigned in 1915.
Lord, you are dense.
We are talking about the current situations in Syria, Iran, and Egypt and you go back to 1917. Lordy. You are completely out of it.
The illogic of your argument is astounding. We talk of today's war party which would include the obvious suspects, McCain, Graham, Leiberman, Ayotte, Clinton, Rice, great American patriots like Hannity, Bill Crystal, Max Boot, AIPAC, the military industrial complex, and on and on, the numbers are legion; yet, you offer up the names of presidents you feel were not part of the 'war party'. Why? What is the relevance?
And even then your thinking is superficial. You post a Wiki piece on Wilson's reluctance to enter WWI but then ignore the following in the same piece:
Wilson frequently intervened in Latin American affairs, saying in 1913: "I am going to teach the South American republics to elect good men." These interventions included Mexico in 1914, Haiti, Dominican Republic in 1916, Cuba in 1917, and Panama in 1918. The U.S. maintained troops in Nicaragua throughout the Wilson administration and used them to select the president of Nicaragua and then to force Nicaragua to pass the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty. American troops in Haiti, under the command of the federal government, forced the Haitian legislature to choose as Haitian president the candidate Wilson selected. American troops occupied Haiti between 1915 and 1934. Wilson ordered the military occupation of the Dominican Republic shortly after the resignation of its President Juan Isidro Jimenes Pereyra in 1916. The U.S. military worked in concert with wealthy Dominican landowners to suppress the gavilleros, a campesino guerrilla force fighting the occupation. The occupation lasted until 1924, and was notorious for its brutality against those in the resistance. Wilson also negotiated with Colombia a treaty in which the U.S. apologized for its role in the Panama Revolution of 1903–1904.
The same interference we see today on the part of the 'war party'. Elitist pricks who 'know best' and have no qualms about interfering.
Human Beings are hard-wired for war. Obama is smart, and wants to avoid it, but he's up against powerful forces. Maybe we'll get lucky, . . . . . . . somehow.ReplyDelete
Since the time of Christ, Sweden has attacked half the known world; Iran, no one.ReplyDelete
This is not so.Delete
I know I sound pessimistic, but I really think we are doomed by our own system. Ten years after a debacle and shameful war the last thing we need is to get involved in another god forsaken place. The “Syrian Rebels" already lost public support among Syrians. Electing a leader who has absolutely no touch with the situation or current reality is the last thing they can do and having the EU or US selecting one for them is worse.ReplyDelete
In almost all the places of Syria - Aleppo, Raqqa, Damascus, Homs - rebels lost support considerably. It is highly unlikely for them to win in this conflict.
I know I sound cynical, but one of the biggest threats to our civilization is that we have defense contractors that operate like any other business in that they need demand to warrant the production of supply. Government contracts for war materials are their bread and butter. They have bottom lines they look to increase every year and peace is their enemy.
Cynical and pessimistic - Ubetcha!
Party of War?ReplyDelete
The War Party in the US is made up those dicks who have never seen a war they didn’t like and who aggressively argue for war (or whatever the euphemism of the day is for war) at the drop of a hat.
It is a culture of war.
No, it is not. It is a culture of sex, drugs an' rock n' roll and thoughtlessness.Delete
You know that as well as I.
You also know no one is 'doomed; nor 'deserves to be doomed'.
You know the difference between Fate and Destiny.
Your mother told you so.
By the refrigerator, when you were a kid.
The Islamists are easily identified as the Party of War. The whole World is the battleground. Just read the Koran.Delete
Beware the Military/Industrial Complex.ReplyDelete
Dwight D. Eishenhower
You're in good company.
Just another of our 'war mongers'.Delete
If Ike were alive today, I wonder what he would recommend?
Read up on the Suez Crisis and you will get a very clear picture of What Eisenhower would do.Delete
In 1956, the Suez Canal became the focus of a major world conflict. The canal represents the only direct means of travel from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, making it vital to the flow of trade between Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S. Normally, free passage was granted to all who used the canal, but Britain and France desired control of it, not only for commercial shipping, but also for colonial interests. The Egyptian government had just been taken over by Gamal Abdel Nasser, who felt the canal should be under Egyptian control. The United States and Britain had promised to give aid to Egypt in the construction of the Asw_n High Dam in the Nile. This aid was retracted however, and in retaliation Nasser nationalized the canal. He intended to use the funds raised from the operation of the canal to pay for the Dam.Delete
Angery British and French politicians joined forces with Israel, a long time enemy of Egypt, in an attack against Nasser. The Israeli army marched toward the canal on October 29, 1956. Britain and France reinforced the Israelis, and the joint effort defeated the Egyptian army quickly. Within ten days, British and French forces had completely occupied the Suez region. Egypt responded by sinking 40 ships in the canal, blocking all passage. The United Nations sought to resolve the conflict and pressured the two European powers to back down. The rest of the world shunned Britain and France for their actions in the crisis, and soon the UN salvage team moved in to clear the canal. Britain and France backed down, and control of the canal was given back to Egypt in March 1957. The Egyptian government was allowed to maintain control of the canal as long as they permitted all vessels of all nations free passage through it.
The colonial tradition of Britain and France began to crumble after the Suez Crisis. The feeling of defeat by a former colony eventually led to the two nations giving up their African colonial empires. The long era of colonization was finally coming to a close. The conflicts between Israel and Egypt, however, were just beginning. Hostilities again flared on June 5, 1967, during the Six-Day War. The Yom Kippur War, the fourth of many armed conflicts between Israel, Egypt, and other Arab nations began on October 16 (Yom Kippur), 1973. Although the war lasted only two weeks, it marked the first time that oil played a major part in the outcome. From October 1973 to March 1974 Arab nations maintained an embargo on oil exports to Israel’s western allies. Israel and Egypt finally began resolving their differences in an UN peace treaty in 1979.
The Suez Crisis did not threaten us directly.Delete
That is your read on that?Delete
ISTANBUL (AP) — The man chosen to head the Syrian opposition’s new interim government is a Syrian-born American citizen who has spent decades in the United States working for technology companies and advocating for various Muslim causes.ReplyDelete
Members of the opposition Syrian National Coalition elected Ghassan Hitto in a vote early Tuesday to head an administration they hope will provide an alternative to President Bashar Assad’s regime and help coordinate the fight against his forces.
Ghassan Hitto is the Syrian equivalent to Ahmad Al-Chalabi, the neocons beloved guy from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) was one of the founders of the Syrian American Council which was established by Bush’s neocons in the year 2005 using a number of Syrians who reside in the United States.
At that time George Bush was threatening Syria and considering invading Syria. This Syrian American Council is known to be indirectly controlled by the CIA and has close ties with AIPAC and The American Task Force for Lebanon (ATFL).
Dick Alert !ReplyDelete
Syria’s rebels are carbon copies of the motley crew of Iraqi expatriates hauled out of their penthouse apartments and suburban homes in the United States and Britain to lead the interim Iraqi government appointed by a U.S. viceroy, Paul “Jerry” Bremer, a protégé of the all-time American war criminal Henry Kissinger. Iraq’s rebel movement had its feather merchant in the personage of Ahmad Chalabi, the international fraudster who was placed in charge of the CIA-created Iraqi National Congress. The Syrian National Coalition “elected” as the prime minister of the Syrian government-in-exile Ghassan Hitto, a U.S. citizen from Texas who has worked for various information technology companies – read that as companies with contracts for the U.S. military-intelligence complex – and who has been involved with various Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated causes linked to the government of Qatar. Hitto, an ethnic Syrian Kurd, demanded that Syria’s United Nations seat be handed over to the Syrian rebels. Like the exiled Chalabi with most Iraqis, most people inside Syria had never heard of Hitto before he became one of Uncle Sam’s new “nephews” in the Middle East.
You don't get it:Delete
Viceroy Bremmer is the new model for bringing us into sync w/the Arab World.
...and to further exclude Christians and Jews from the Coming Nirvana!
PBUH, ...and Bremmer.
Wiki says we lost 131,028,000 in WW II, not that far from the USSR at 160,000,000, Obviously a mistake.ReplyDelete
I was gonna say at least it was for a reason, but I will look for a more accurate number.
Really Stupid Table
...all the categories are in tens and hundreds of thousands.
The totals: Hundreds of Millions.
...or am I missing something?
On the same page @ Wiki:ReplyDelete
"World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to over 70 million.
The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 80 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."
A total of 70 million, yet the US and USSR lost 130 Million and 160 Million!
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Two Billion died!
We were doomed before we were born into this imaginary World!
ummm, dude, when reading tables it is helpful to look at the column headings.Delete
So, no, 2 billion is not the number of dead but rather the total population of the world in 1939.
I'm sure you interpret Rush's rants correctly though...
...and you moan about rufus - sheeeesh!
...but the heading was so far up from what I was interested in!Delete
Please forgive me, Mr. Potatoe Head!
Even the Chosen Ones make mistakes.Delete
Latest thing in foodstamps:ReplyDelete
Recipient submits grocery list to store, store employees find and bag the items, recipient shows up in store, "pays" for the items with her Electronic Benefit Card, and has an employee carry it out to her car.
A real time saver for the Slug/Leech.
This Great Democracy has never had more Electronic Benefit Card recipients in history, and has never had a lower total labor participation rate since before the early '80's.
My son is now working sales at a Wal Greens in Kentucky. He sees this all the time. People trading things around. He has expressed sometimes thoughts like, why shouldn't I be on the other end of the aisle?Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Your wife had nothing to do with him?Delete
Carolla wants to stay with stamps, not credit cards.Delete
...to promote a vanishing commodity:
Peace Be Upon DougReplyDelete
Europe's Disturbing Precedent in the Cyprus BailoutReplyDelete
By George Friedman | March 26, 2013
The European economic crisis has taken different forms in different places, and Cyprus is the latest country to face the prospect of financial ruin. Overextended banks in Cyprus are teetering on the brink of failure for issuing loans they cannot repay, which has prompted the tiny Mediterranean country, a member of the European Union, to turn to Brussels for help. Late Sunday, the European Union and Cypriot president announced new terms for a bailout that would provide the infusion of cash necessary to prevent bankruptcies in Cyprus' banking sector and, more important, prevent a banking panic from spreading to the rest of Europe.
What makes this crisis different from the previous bailouts for Greece, Ireland or elsewhere are the conditions Brussels has attached for its assistance. Due to circumstances unique to Cyprus, namely the questionable origin of a large chunk of the deposits in its now-stricken banking sector and that sector's small size relative to the overall European economy, the European Union, led by Germany, has taken a harder line with the country. Cyprus has few sources of capital besides its capacity as a banking shelter, so Brussels required that the country raise part of the necessary funds from its own banking sector -- possibly by seizing money from certain bank deposits and putting it toward the bailout fund. The proposal has not yet been approved, but if enacted it would undermine a formerly sacred principle of banking in most industrial nations -- the security of deposits -- setting a new and possibly destabilizing precedent in Europe.
Ten years after Iraq was inflicted with 'Shock and Awe', the target is now Syria. It’s Marx all over again – history repeating itself as a double tragedy and double farce.ReplyDelete
Let’s start with that Stooge Central; the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), which is nothing but a US State Department/Qatar concoction.
The head of the SNC, Moaz al-Khatib, resigned this past Sunday, blaming Qatar for trying to “control” it. Al-Khatib, crucially, was in favor of civilized negotiations with Damascus, as he told Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi.
So he had to disagree with the new “interim Prime Minister” invented by Washington and Doha; one Ghasan Hitto, a Syrian-American IT business executive based in Texas who has not been to Syria for three decades.
It’s the same old story. This Syrian Ahmed Chalabi [President of the Governing Council of Iraq in September 2003 who spent most of his life in the United States and the United Kingdom – RT] – in itself a deadly joke harking back to those heady pre-Shock and Awe days in 2002 – already had a Libyan counterpart; Abdurraheem el-Keib, a US citizen involved in the oil industry and the Prime Minister installed in Libya after NATO “liberated” it via humanitarian bombing.
Along with al-Khatib, the collection of gangs known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA) also refused to recognize the Syrian Chalabi. And still, it’s this Qatar-approved entity who is representing the Syrian “rebels” in the widely discredited Arab League summit dedicated to Syria on Tuesday in…Qatar.
Washington/Doha’s game is to de facto legitimize a puppet “Free Syria” enclave in the north – a bunch of scrawny villages – and thus totally discard any possibility of a negotiated solution for the Syrian civil war tragedy; the UN’s Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi might as well pack up and go home.
What Washington/Doha want – which is what the Muslim Brotherhood wants – is, in the Big Picture, what the NATO-GCC compound wants; regime change. The feudal 'petro-monarchies' of the GCC – Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as Gulf Counter-Revolution Club – are essentially an annex to NATO.
Blowback, it goes without saying, will be horrendous. The top warring actors in Syria are Iraqi-Syrian jihadis. Jabhat al-Nusra – which Washington regards as a terrorist outfit – strictly follows the modus operandi of Iraqi jihadis. Iraqi tribal clans are up to their necks in their operations – as in the tribal confederation Aqidat, the largest in eastern Syria, stretching all the way to Saudi Arabia.
This is how the GCC directly interferes inside Syria; weapon smuggling is controlled by powerful Sunni clans. In the future, when jihadis return from Syria, they will raise hell inside Iraq.
That Desert Storm feeling
By now everyone knows that most “Syrian revolutionaries” are remote-controlled by Washington and Doha.
Yet it gets worse. Not only because in early March the proverbial “US official” leaked that the CIA has been training “rebels” in Jordan since 2012. The notion that the CIA, the Pentagon and the State Department are successfully “vetting” militias in Jordan and Turkey and only supporting “friendly” incarnations of “freedom fighters” is ludicrous. The fighters that really matter are weaponized directly, privileging from Saudi, Qatari and Emirati funds.
With a Syrian Chalabi and an army of mercenaries in place, the only piece missing for full regime change would have to be a 'Shock and Awe' remix. And that’s exactly what US European Command head Admiral James Stavridis confirmed last week to the Senate Armed Services Committee; the Pentagon and NATO – which is essentially the Pentagon in Europe – are practically ready to roll.
Stavridis spelled it out as the US “being prepared if called upon to be engaged as we were in Libya.” This implies a NATO-imposed no-fly zone, which in Libya immediately translated into war. NATO is at the stage of “discussing” a no-fly zone.
In the main stage, we’re actually getting closer to an imminent false flag – certainly involving Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. US President Barack Obama has already framed any chemical weapons movement as his “red line” .
Diplomats in Brussels told me this process does not mean NATO acting as a whole; it’s essentially Britain and France. David “of Arabia” Cameron and Francois “Desert Storm” Hollande have already called an emergency EU foreign minister meeting this week to plug their new war – starting with the EU lifting their arms embargo, the first step towards a no-fly zone.
Denmark might be tempted. Germany is resolutely against it, stressing the only ones to benefit will be jihadis. What’s troubling is that Cameron “of Arabia” and “Desert Storm” Hollande are even threatening to go around the EU.
Even though Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey still refuses a “military option” , two senators in Washington, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Iraqi war fanatic John McCain, are already leading the Capitol Hill army.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has already imparted his blessing;
“The United States does not stand in the way of other countries that made a decision to provide arms, whether it’s France or Britain or others.” And ominously, rising from the dead, the Foreign Policy Initiative – the successor to the infamous, Iraq war-peddling, neo-con Project for a New American Century (PNAC) – started spewing out war cheerleading press releases.
Obama, among all the hysteria, gives the impression of a (glamorous) deer caught in the headlights on a desert highway. Before posing as a tourist in Petra, Jordan, he warned about the danger of post-Assad Syria becoming a jihadi paradise.
And still the President is clueless; ten years after ’Shock and Awe’ , many in the Washington-Brussels axis dream of a remix that can only lead to the outcome he apparently dreads.
As in Egypt, the only organized opposition to the government is the Muslim Brotherhood.Delete
There is no other organized Syrian based opposition in Syria, that can field a fighting force or a government that could rule the country.
The US has no ties to the Syrian Army, unlike the long history the US has with training and equipping the Egyptian Army.
If Assad goes, the Wahhabi win.
Syria loses a ruler from a Christian sect, the Alawi, and will gain a Muslim Brotherhood Wahhabi in his stead.
All with US assistance
Remember 9-11 ...
Never Forget ...
The people of the US have been played by professionals, no doubt.
eh!? How do you square that with your desire for the US to march on through Iraq to Damascus? Are you one of the "professionals"?Delete
Because, ash, in 2002 I firmly believed the propaganda promoted by the Government. That the US was engaged in a general "War on Terrorism". The Assad regime in Syria had certainly used terrorism in its recent history. The US was at war with a Baathist regime in Iraq and the Assad regime is Baathist, as well. I saw the potential for massive failure, in Iraq, if the US did not put a large footprint into the Anbar region of Iraq. When the Turks vetoed the passage of the US Army through their territory the only other pathway to Baghdad was through Damascus.Delete
The US never put a major combat capable footprint into Anbar, never defeated the Sunni population there and did suffer massive failure, in Iraq, in part, due to the US failure to fight a two front war in Iraq.
In that sense, ash, yes, I was a professional soldier and the potential for the failure of the military operation without the "Second Front" was obvious.
Things mighta been a whole lot different then, than now, after ten years of FUBAR in the ME by the United States.Delete
We have empowered the Muslims like no other country.
We're number One!
Yeah, things would have been a whole lot worse if we would have bitten off Syria in addition to Iraq at that time. Engaging Syria as well as Iraq would not have altered the competing Shia - Sunni rivalry that is driving much of the conflict in the ME. Yes, yes, it is a simplification but that is a large driver of the dynamics of the conflicts.Delete
Only the possibility of being worse, ash.Delete
Here we are, today, on the cusp of a war in Syria. It is an extension of the Iraq War, part of the totality of US policies in the Islamic Arc, a decade in and the "End" is not in sight. US enjoying miserable failure due to a lack of resolve and no definition of what "Victory" would look like, in the region.
If the US had driven through Syria, in 2002, by now the maps could have been redrawn. Creating a Shiite Iraq, a Kurdistan and an expanded Syria, taking in the Sunni regions of Iraq.
The creation of a Kurdistan would have created considerable pressure on Iran, while the Turks would have been distressed. The pressure upon Iran, a good thing, while distressing Turkey, turn about fair play.
No telling what "Could" have been. It is an unknowable.
True that, but I think it highly unlikely that doing more of the same would have yielded superior results.Delete
Fortunately we are not on the cusp of a war in Syria and we've withdrawn from Iraq and are getting out of Afghanistan. The wars will most likely continue but without US...
Those pesky NORK's though, could be trouble looming there, but hopefully the little Kim isn't that stupid.
The chances we will get into a military conflict with Iran?
The chances that we will get into a militsry conflict to some degree in the ME during the next year?
Probably a bit higher.
As in Egypt, the only organized opposition to the government is the Muslim Brotherhood.Delete
You must have meant was the Muslim Brotherhood, because the MB is the government today.
We are not going into Syria with major ground troops. Ash is right.Delete
The chances for a major conflict between Israel and Iran are really high.
Will we be involved - open question.
I certainly hope we back the Israelis up.
No, boobie, in Egypt the Army is still the functioning government. You give to much credit to the titles bestowed by elections, rather than where the real power resides. Especially in a country like Egypt where the Army controls a sizable chunk of the economy.Delete
What constitutes the government if not control of the nations weaponry and the economy. Which is what the military in Egypt maintains, which is why we will fund their military aid programs. It goes to those that really govern the country, not the figure heads in the elected positions.
Hat tip: JennyReplyDelete
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia said on Tuesday that people it arrested on suspicion of spying this month had direct links to the intelligence services of Iran, its main rival for influence in the Gulf.
A Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman told official media that preliminary investigations - based on physical evidence and statements by the suspects - had found that members of the group had received payment for information.
Riyadh announced a week ago it had arrested 16 Saudis, an Iranian and a Lebanese on spying grounds. The spokesman said the investigation was ongoing.
Members of Saudi Arabia's Shi'ite Muslim minority said the arrested men were from their community and expressed doubt over the veracity of the charges.
Iran said on Sunday it rejected any suggestion it was linked to spying in Saudi Arabia.
The Wahhabi are in the minority, in the oil producing region, along the eastern frontier of Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi are a ruling minority in Bahrain. The Wahhabi can only hold to power through the use of military force and US weapons.Delete
The Shiites of Persias need not have an aggressive military stance, demographics is working its wonders in their favor.
Scares Bibi and the Mullahs he is aligned with, to distraction.
The Wahhabi are the shits.
The Shiite, just giggles.
Truth be known.
Who in their right minds thought that we would ever have sided with the Saudis after 911? At least in WW2 we had enough sense to recognize the real enemy.ReplyDelete
10 Million bbls of Oil/Day.Delete
Offshore Energy Whores.Delete
Barach Obama, the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be, he's got it all, warrantless surveillance, unilateral military action, kill lists, attacking whistle-blowers, the imperial presidency 40 years on.
That's the Way You Do It Dick
Dire Straits could document it in music.Delete
My, my, my.
Nixon's use of warrantless surveillance led to the creation of a special court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). But the reform turned out to be more form than substance. The secret court turned "probable cause" into a meaningless standard, virtually guaranteeing any surveillance the government wanted. After hundreds of thousands of applications over decades, only a couple have ever been denied.
Last month, the Supreme Court crushed any remaining illusions regarding FISA when it sided with the Obama administration in ruling that potential targets of such spying had to have proof they were spied upon before filing lawsuits, even if the government has declared such evidence to be secret. That's only the latest among dozens of lawsuits the administration has blocked while surveillance expands exponentially.
While I have argued against kill lists and warrantless assassination as well as condeming people without trial; others who are equally opposed to the administration's drone policies have argued against setting up special courts to review the president's decisions.
This is not because they are against additional review but because they are against the assassinations altogether without a trial and they feel setting up these special courts will result in the same probems we see with the FISA court, the blank check they offer when secrecy is alleged plus the fact that having a court tends to legitimize actions thought to be inherently illigitimate.
No jury, no court.Delete
The President given authority to use the war powers, by Congress, on 14SEP01.Delete
The actions of the President are totally legitimate, without any Court being involved.
If someone thinks that the Authorization of Force passed on 14SEP01 is illegitimate, well, that is another discussion entirely.
I see you are licking those frogs again, rat.
"A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.ReplyDelete
Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.
The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.
A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. CitizensDelete
Based in California's wine country, KRAVE imbues its products with the reverence for quality – from ingredients to process to packaging – expected of the world-class wine produced in neighboring vineyards.
...Jon Sebastiani, scion of the Sebastiani Wine Empire.
They make Pork Jerky too.
Hope I can taste some.
(featured on Adam Carolla's numbe 1 podcast)
None of these pukes can ever just disappear. Why do we have to listen to their bullshit?ReplyDelete
WASHINGTON — Former CIA director David Petraeus is making his first public speech since resigning in November over an extramarital affair.
The former four-star general is scheduled to speak Tuesday night at a University of Southern California event honoring the military.
A prepared text of his speech, obtained by The New York Times, indicates Petraeus will apologize for the affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell. Petraeus is expected to acknowledge that he’s “regarded in a different light now” than he was a year ago and that he’ll try to make amends and move forward as best he can.
How about just fucking off?ReplyDelete
I am for that!Delete
Meanwhile, the wife, just back from the accountant, tells me we owe another 8k to the government.
And cat food has gone up!
I am going back to bed.Delete
This week an academic in Norway proposed a “pay as you weigh” scheme that would see airlines charging overweight fliers more to help recoup the cost of the extra fuel required to carry them.ReplyDelete
In the Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Bharat P Bhatta suggested three methods: a straightforward price per kilogram; a fixed low fare, with heavier passengers paying a surcharge and lighter passengers being offered a discount; or the introduction of three bands – heavy, normal and light, with passengers charged accordingly.
His suggestions received the backing of 48 per cent of those questioned in a poll by the website Holiday Extras. The plans received slightly more support among men, with 51 per cent in favour, compared to 43 per cent of women.
“Sitting next to a large person on a plane can sometimes reduce the space that you have to relax,” said James Lewis of Holiday Extras. “If we have to pay extra for excess baggage, maybe we should pay extra for excess body weight.”
Must be Ash.
the Urirnal of Revenue and Pricing ManagementDelete
Let's just fuck off
All I want is a camper.Delete
If this camper is rockin', forget about knockin'.Delete
(need camper first)Delete
A Syrian opposition leader said Tuesday that he had asked the United States to defend rebel-held areas with Patriot missiles.ReplyDelete
NATO already has Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries in NATO-member Turkey to help defend the country from potential airstrikes by President Bashar Assad's regime.
Syrian opposition leader Mouaz al-Khatib -- who appeared Tuesday as the representative of Syria at an Arab League summit meeting following the Assad regime’s suspension -- said that he had asked Secretary of State John Kerry “to extend the umbrella of the Patriot missiles to cover the Syrian north and he promised to study the subject,” Reuters reported.
U.S. oil prices posted their biggest gain of 2013 on Tuesday, spurred by signs of economic improvement in the world's biggest oil consumer.ReplyDelete
A U.S. stock-market rally aided the push in crude-oil futures traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Nymex futures for May delivery finished $1.53, or 1.6%, higher at $96.34 a barrel, a five-week high.
“She thought the nightmare was over,” Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, said soon after today's Supreme Court verdict overturning her murder acquittal was read out. But instead the young American must continue the struggle to clear her name more than five years after she was first arrested for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia.ReplyDelete
Professor Renzo Orlandi of Bologna University, a leading expert in Italian criminal trials, is one such doubter. “To be honest I was somewhat amazed by the Perugia appeal court’s verdict,” he said yesterday.
The prosecutor Luigi Riello, who successfully argued before the Cassation Court judges for the acquittals to be overturned, said he thought that Ms Knox’s conviction for slander – over her accusation that a local bar owner Patrice Lumumba was responsible – may have been a factor in yesterday’s verdict.
Former President Bill Clinton's 8,300-square-foot Harlem office near the Apollo Theater costs taxpayers nearly $450,000. George W. Bush spends $85,000 on telephone fees, and another $60,000 on travel.ReplyDelete
Topping the list in 2012 was George W. Bush, who got just over $1.3 million last year.
Rubio and other key players welcome the efforts of the faith groups, but they are also trying to make certain the push from outside actors doesn’t muddle their message.ReplyDelete
“I think the evangelicals are asking for us to be humane and compassionate,” the Florida senator told RCP. “But they also understand we have to be responsible -- that what we do, whatever we come up with, does have to honor our tradition as a compassionate nation and a compassionate people, but we also have to do it in a way that makes sure we are being fair to the people who are doing it the right way, and in a way that doesn’t encourage illegal immigration in the future.”
Rubio, whose parents emigrated from Cuba to the United States, spoke in starkly more inclusive terms about immigration during 2012 than the eventual GOP presidential nominee. Not coincidentally, Rubio is frequently mentioned as a likely 2016 national candidate.
In a recent article entitled Son, Will You Fire On American Citizens, author Herschel Smith relays his thoughts on morality and commitment to liberty. He calls upon our leaders, specifically President Obama, to ask himself some hard questions about how far he would go to maintain “order” should the United States every come to a point where life as we know it today breaks down.ReplyDelete
One reader named Joe shared a story of his grandfather, a former police officer and soldier in Hitler’s Germany, who initially believed he was doing the right thing, until one night when his own actions led him to realize the extent of his Fuhrer’s lies:
In the 70′s I asked my grandfather about 3 bullet scars he had on his chest. He told me they were from the war and wouldnt say more.
I know some here don't like Hannity, but he just hosted a most wonderful interview with Dr. Ben Carson. One black, one white, both really intelligent, both Christians, speaking with one another as we should, polite and thoughtful.ReplyDelete
Dr. Ben Carson, a surgeon, said, when I operate, I operate, in the inside, where we are all the same. Not on the outside, melatonin.Delete
President Barack Obama signed into law a catchall government-funding bill that ends the 2013 budget fight and locks in $85 billion in budget cuts the president opposes.ReplyDelete
With Obama’s signature, day-to-day operations of cabinet departments and federal agencies will continue without interruption through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. With the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration taking effect, the spending will amount to about $984 billion. The previous funding authorization was due to expire tomorrow.
The across-the-board cuts usher in a new “age of austerity,” said Darrell West, director of the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based public policy group.
The spending reductions undercut Obama’s push to increase funding for research, education and infrastructure, which he has said are necessary to bolster economic security for middle- income Americans. He continues to seek a deal with congressional Republicans that . . . . .
Obama Signs Cuts
"The proponents are interested in getting it on the ballot and seeing that all of the proper procedures are followed, but once it's passed, they have no proprietary interest in it. It's law for them, just as it is for everyone else.ReplyDelete
The sceptical questioning from the liberal justices hinted that they had doubts about whether the supporters of Proposition 8 should ever have made it so far as the supreme court. It remains to be seen whether they were persuaded by the arguments in court, and the much lengthier and more detailed written submissions, to take the next step and rule on whether Proposition 8 should stand or fall.
But the supreme court will hear more arguments about the validity of another gay marriage case on Wednesday when they will consider whether Congress has the legal standing to fight to uphold the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex unions, when the Obama administration has repudiated the legislation.
Oral Arguments at Supreme Court over Definition of Marriage:ReplyDelete
Friend of the Court Brief --
Can I Marry My Cat, Why and Why Not?