“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Qusair: Is the legitimate government of Syria beginning to defeat the foreign terrorists and the domestic rebellion? Is it any of our business to get further involved?

19 May 2013 Last updated at 09:21 ET BBC

Syria army 'storms' rebel town Qusair

Syrian government forces are storming the rebel stronghold of Qusair, with state TV saying troops now control the town centre.
Fighting has gone on around the town, near the Lebanese border, for weeks.
Opposition groups say militants from the Lebanese Hezbollah movement are fighting alongside government forces.
Correspondents say Qusair has strategic value for both sides. If the government retakes it, it would ensure access from the capital to the coast.
For the rebels, control of Qusair means they can come and go from neighbouring Lebanon, says the BBC's Jim Muir, in Beirut.
Syrian opposition activists said government air strikes and heavy shelling on Sunday had killed at least 30 people in Qusair, including 16 rebel fighters.
State TV said that troops had taken over buildings in the centre, including the town hall, and were now chasing out "terrorists" - its term for rebel fighters.
It said at least 70 rebels had been killed in the advance, but there is no independent confirmation.
Earlier, Rami Abdel Rahman, of UK-based activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said troops were advancing from the south and Hezbollah fighters were "playing a central role".
"Soldiers and tanks are trying to advance into the town, the rebel forces are attempting to push them back," he told AFP news agency.
There is no word from either side on civilian casualties.
There are also reports that hundreds of Lebanese Sunni militants have joined the fight on the rebels' side, our correspondent says.
In another development, the Lebanese National News Agency reported that eight Soviet-made Grad rockets had struck hit the north-eastern town of Hermel.
The agency said the short-range missiles were presumably fired from Syria but had caused no damage or casualties.
News of the assault on Qusair came as Mr Assad vowed to continue the "fight against terrorism".
In his first interview since the US and Russia announced plans for a peace conference, Mr Assad told an Argentine newspaper that the meeting should focus on stopping the flow of money and weapons to "terrorists".
He rejected suggestions he might stand down, saying a captain did not abandon his ship and presidential elections next year would determine his future.
The conference, scheduled for June, will try to persuade the Syrian government and opposition to accept a deal, including an immediate cessation of violence.
The plan, based on a UN-backed proposal, would see the establishment of a transitional government that could include officials serving under President Assad and members of the opposition.
However, neither the Syrian government nor the opposition has yet made a commitment to attend the meeting.
The top US general described Russia's decision to send missiles to Syria as "ill-timed and unfortunate".
Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the shipment would "embolden the regime and prolong the suffering".
Without confirming the shipment, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the supply of missiles to Syria did not break any international rules.
Russia, a key ally of President Assad, has a small naval maintenance facility at the Syrian deep-water port of Tartus.
Last week, the BBC's Ian Pannell was shown video and eyewitness testimony that appear to corroborate allegations of chemical weapons' use in the Syrian town of Saraqeb.
Turkey has given US President Barack Obama what it says is evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria.
The US had warned that such a development would be a "red line" for possible intervention.
But Mr Obama said more specific details were needed about alleged chemical attacks.
Russia has consistently opposed any international intervention in Syria, along the lines of the Libyan conflict in 2011.
The UN said last week that the death toll in Syria had reached at least 80,000 since the conflict began in March 2011. Activists said the number could be as high as 120,000.


  1. What would the US government do if a rebel group from Texas decided to secede?

    What would the Israeli government do if a network of Israeli Arabs decided they wanted autonomy?

    You know the answer. They would both do a Lincoln. So has Assad.

  2. The only country I'd like to see the US get involved in is the US.

    1. The Americas, for Americans.

      We can bring that Polynesian Paradise, Hawaii, along for good measure.
      Maybe the US can get some added value from that $750,000,000 moon watching project.

    2. Are you talking all the countries of North and South America?
      That sounds like a colonial aspiration.

    3. What would the US government do if a rebel group from Texas decided to secede?

      Send in the Sherman Steamroller again, sixty miles wide.

  3. What did the Brits do in Northern Ireland, the ass stabbers in Turkey to the Kurds, The Russians to the Chechens or the PLA in Tiananmen Square?

    It his how the force works.

  4. Between Assad, Russia and Hezbollah, the fighting could go on & on.
    Let them duke it out.
    A place for the jihadists to reach paradise.

    1. When will the resources of Qatar and Saudi Arabia run dry, and the rebels are rolled up?

      Will the Turks let that happen?

      What was the Turkish role, in Benghazi?
      Why were they not called upon, to support US personnel at the Compound.

      No hot LZ night insertion required.

      The remarks were perhaps the most important and telling of the entire hearing since they address a possible motive behind the jihadist attacks.

      Yet Clinton’s answers were largely unreported by U.S. news media.

      The exchange on the subject took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

      Paul asked Clinton: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

      “To Turkey?” Clinton asked. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”

      Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”

      Clinton replied, “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”

      “You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.

      “I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”


      While our 'Friends' @ FOX News ...
      "don't even address the military capabilities of our United Nations ally Turkey, who (has) forces available a similarly short flight away." Fox News has learned that Turkey had a number of embassy staff in town the night of the attack and that the Turkish consul general met with Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi the night he and the three other Americans were killed.

      One source asked, "Were the Turks not warned? What forces were available from our ally Turkey?
      Especially since they had officials there in Benghazi also and had to be concerned …

      Read more:

      The FOX report tells us that security consultants were ringing the alarm, while the Turks were still in the compound, but did the attack did not begin until after they had left. About an hour after they left.

      That's the cover up, the rest, the reason for the Cover Story.
      The Cover Story, full of holes, because it has always been a piece of fiction.

      Folks see the holes, the 'symptoms', and think they've found evidence of the cause.

      What did General P know ...
      ... when did he know it?

    2. What role will Israel play, if any.
      Maybe just protect her borders and keep their heads down?

    3. The Israeli have already struck into Syria.

      They are supporting the Assad regime, if one believes the spokesperson for the Free Syrian Army.
      They are assisting the rebels, if the Israeli are to be believed.

    4. There is no shortage of intrigue in this epic battle.

    5. .

      Folks see the holes, the 'symptoms', and think they've found evidence of the cause.

      What did General P know ...
      ... when did he know it?

      What you are talking about is old news speculated about in news stories on Benghazi since day one. Would it surprise anyone to know that we were trying to arrange for transfer of Libyan arms to Syrian rebels through Turkey when we are likley doing the same thing through Jordan? Old news.

      You are interested in a cover up of what was going on in Benghazi, rat. I am interested in why four Americans were killed as the result of adequate security requested but denied.

      The two are only tangentially ralated if at all.


    6. They are totally related, Q.

      The security at the compound was a CIA responsibility, at least internally.

      Of those evacuated, only seven were State Department personnel. They were there as part of the Cover Story to the real purpose of the compound.

      The difficulty you seem to be having is in the realization it was not a real Consulate.
      That the folks from State that testified in Congress said much of nothing, sticking to the cover story.

      It does fall apart upon close examination.
      Because what they are covering up is what was going on, in Benghazi, prior to the attack.
      Not the 'Who struck John' follow up to the events.

      That the Turkish envoy was there at the compound, the illicit arms may well have been moving towards Turkey, and the forces were gathering to attack the compound, before the Turks left.

      That you think these events unconnected, bizarre to say the least.
      The responsibility for securing US assets in Benghazi, that compound included, fell to the CIA.

      The only reporting worthy of the name, Q, is that immediately after the event.
      The reporting on the spinning of the event, in DC, just politics as usual.

    7. .

      Everyone who has testified including Nordstrom, the State guy responsible for security on the ground in Libya, have stated that security at the Benghazi facility was State Department responsibility. The CIA annex was a mile or more away.

      Hicks, the acting HOM, after Stevens death indicated that one of the reasons Stevens was in Benghazi was to try assure it was being upgraded to full consulate level as requested by Hillary Clinton. He also mentioned there was some urgency due to the fact that a certain traunch of funds that could be allocated for that upgrade would be expiring at the end of the month. So far, no one has denied that.

      The State Department clearly didn't want the security warnings they received mentioned; otherwise, there would have been no re-writing of the nonclas intelligence report mentioned in the e-mails. This could be viewed in two separate ways. One, that State was trying to cover their asses on security related mistakes, or two, as you have suggested they were actually covering for a classified CIA operation. However, if the latter is true, it's not a matter of what did Hillary or Petraeus knew and when. The whole fiasco then falls into the lap of the White House and the President.

      Libya had just come through a civil war and coup d'etat, rebel militias including al Queda were everywhere, the central government was weak, arms caches were all over the place, and the State Department was working with the CIA on an arms deal to supply the Sryrian rebels and the President didn't know about it? Doesn't make much sense, unless he of course was skipping his daily intelligence briefings, he had forgone meetings with the NSC, or he was planning another vacation.

      Issa will continue his hearings. Someone was responsible for the lax security. We'll see where it leads.



    8. .

      Because what they are covering up is what was going on, in Benghazi, prior to the attack. Not the 'Who struck John' follow up to the events.

      Again, you like the GOP, are concentrating on the cover-up. I am concetrating on the 4 dead Americans who died because of adequate security requested but denied, security Charlotte Lamb and other State Department bureaucrats told them wasn't necessary despite CIA warnings of the deteriorating security situation in both Benghazi and Tripoli.



    9. .

      The responsibility for securing US assets in Benghazi, that compound included, fell to the CIA.

      There is no argument that the CIA didn't have some responsibility considering that the local militia they had vetted quickly faded away when the fighting started. This has yet to be fully explored in the hearings. However, the help the State Department personal in Tripoli were asking for was increased U.S. troop presence as well as hiring additional permanent contract specialists. This was refused despite that fact that the central government itself was in no position to provide the security we would expect from most countries. Instead, they offered us a list of militias they considered trustworthy or at least more trustworthy than others.

      The real reason the people in Tripoli and Benghazi didn't get what they wanted and instead had to settle for unreliable locals can be expressed in one word, 'normalization', the U.S. policy to reduce security personnel and instead depend on local assets, a policy that was questionable given the unsettled nature of Libya at the time as well as the 230 security incidents that had taken place in the previous year.

      If the Benghazi affair was the result of a joint CIA/State program, then the ultimate responsibility rests at the White House.


  5. We have 10 Million Unemployed, and 50 Million without Health Insurance. We need to let the Syrians tend their own garden.

    1. I'm in the WiO camp on this one. Let the Moose Limbs of the Religion of Peace kill each other. I'm making popcorn.

  6. Renewables produced 21.5% of California's electricity again, yesterday.

    Ca ISO

  7. State of Texas FAQ

    Some Frequently Asked Questions About Texas

    Q-1. Does Texas have the right to secede?

    A. No... but yes, not explicitly. There is no verbiage in the Texas Constitution, the US Constitution, or the Texas Annexation Agreement that expressly grants the State of Texas the right to secede from the Union. However, the US Constitution is silent on the issue, neither prohibiting it or allowing it, for any state. With that in mind, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution expressly reserves ALL POWERS not granted to the federal government, to the states. So, by virtue of the fact that the US Constitution does not expressly prohibit secession, nor does it expressly give the federal government the power to prevent a state from seceding, ALL states have the right to secede. Think of secession like a divorce. The parties are going their separate ways through a declaration from one of the parties, that they no longer wish to remain in the marriage. This is all it takes to secede: a state congressional declaration.

    Q-2. Can Texas be broken up into 5 states?

    A. Yes. The Annexation agreement that resulted in Texas becoming a state in 1845 allows Texas to be broken up into 5 total states. Hmmm... maybe we don't need to secede. If we broke up into 5 states we would have 5 times the influence in the US Senate.

    1. So, beyond being an Israeli, quot is a Texican, too.

      Who'd have guessed he moved from Ohio, to Texas.

    2. Another utterly stupid statement by General Bunk.

      Most people would have guessed WiO was quoting from State of Texas FAQ.

    3. Guessing?

      We need to guess that quot is plagiarizing some web site?

      Not putting the words in italic or giving reference to a web site means it is original work.

      We must assume plagiarism, when dealing with quot, or just guess at it?

    4. Well one must assume when dealing with anything you say it's just a crock of shit.

      you make up things, lie and distort all words spoken here.

      Your purpose in this blog is not discussion but rather confusion, entertainment and lies.

      General Bunk is your name, bullshit is your game.

      Not a word that comes from you worthy of real discussion.

    5. Why just yesterday you said you were going to refute me, point by point.

      That program did not last a entire day.
      Now you plagiarize the work of others.

      Or you are a Texican, too.
      Didn't know they let socialists into Texas.

      That English is a bit to, shall we sa, ...
      ... sublime for you to fully comprehend.
      Well Israeli schools may have some good English as a second language classes you can take.

    6. I do agree, it is entertaining watching you twist in the wind.

      Others seem to feel the same. Sorry if that distresses you.

      Nah, I am not sorry at all. I do not feel your pain.

      You have tried, repeatedly, to diminish the horror that was NAZI Germany.
      You have compared the Christians in Syria to NAZIs.

      You have expressed your admiration for Hitler, and your father's failure to get it right.
      If that was a lie, who then deals in lies, but the quot who wrote it, first.

    7. You have, quot, compared the Iranians to NAZI Germany.

      Which is funny on its face, but to make the point.
      The Iranians cannot build a tank.
      The Germans certainly could. Even the Israeli can.

      The Iranians, cannot. Do not.

      So, what we can infer from your statements is that the Iranians can be conflated with the Christians in Syria.
      Both are like NAZIs.

      Does that mean the Israeli are like the Soviets?
      There are over a million Russians living in Palestine, today.

    8. Hmmm... maybe we don't need to secede. If we broke up into 5 states we would have 5 times the influence in the US Senate.

      You think the folks in the "Austin" state would vote the same way as the folks in the "Amarillo" state?

  8. Liberate Israeli arabs from Israel, give them the land, freedom and take away the israeli citizenship and give them a Palestinian one.

    Give the PA the town change the border. Liberate the arabs!!!

    Hell no say the Arabs...


    1. It's all about the water.
      They already are Palestinians, why give up what you were striven to attain?

      Every Israeli is a Palestinian.
      That's the country,
      Israel merely a State within it.

    2. One day General Bunk says it's all about the oil, the next day Bunk says it is all about the Abrahamic religions, the next day he says it is all about the water.....and today adds every Israeli is a Palestinian, when yesterday he said the Israelis were all European invaders/colonialists into the 'Arc of Instability'.

      Most heads would spin at all this shit, but Bunk handles it well, he being a genius of the Scot Fitzgerald type, able to keep contradictory ideas in his head at the same time and not becoming upset by it all.

    3. Who is this General Bunk?

      Where are these statements made?

      The ones where he says "all" of anything has a singular cause?

      What a total crock of shit you are peddling now.

    4. Ya see Bob, General Bunk cant ever state a truth that all but Iran can't say, State of Israel.

      So General Bunk and Iran, on the same side of history when Israel is concerned.


    5. What kind of State is Israel, quot?

    6. It is not a State, like Arizona or Alaska.

      It is not part of the United States

      Is it a State in Palestine?

    7. It took our General many years and much prodding to learn to spell Israeli as Israeli, instead of as Isreali.

      Giving charity a full head of steam, it could be said Bunk is a really slow learner.

    8. His posts at:

      desert ratSun May 19, 03:39:00 PM EDT

      desert ratSun May 19, 03:41:00 PM EDT

      desert ratSun May 19, 03:42:00 PM EDT

      directly above being entered in evidence.

    9. That's what Mr Truman recognized, a State in Palestine.

      His exact phrasing ...

      ... been proclaimed in Palestine ...

      And we know that not all of Palestine was under the de facto rule of the provisional government.
      East Jerusalem, for example.

      All of Jordan, if quot's claim that all of Jordan is Palestine, too, is true.
      I think it is.

      So, in Palestine, today, there are at least two states and a large group of stateless people and the refugees awaiting return to Palestine from Lebanon.

    10. Is Israel real?

      That was the question being asked, boobie.

      After some small amount of research I read Mr Truman's recognition statement.

      This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof.

      The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel

      Harry Truman

      May 14, 1948

      Then quot confirmed my suspicions and the claim of Arabfat, that Jordan was part of Palestine. That it was a Palestinian State. He is correct.

      There are two States in Palestine, today.
      There is the State of Israel and the State of Jordan.

      There is a large group of Stateless residents, in Palestine as well.
      Then there are the Stateless Palestinian refugees, in Lebanon.

    11. Funny that Palestine is the name of the country, but neither of the sovereign polities in the country care to claim it for their own.

    12. Perhaps it slips his mind that there is a belligerent little entity ensconced in the Levant, and that there are quite a few high ranking US officials, past and present, who share duel nationality with this aggressive little fellow.

    13. AnonymousSun May 19, 06:13:00 PM EDT
      Perhaps it slips his mind that there is a belligerent little entity ensconced in the Levant, and that there are quite a few high ranking US officials, past and present, who share duel nationality with this aggressive little fellow.

      Perhaps you are just jealous that Israel is a great nation, no matter it's small size?

      Perhaps you'd like to list " quite a few high ranking US officials, past and present, who share duel nationality"?

      Perhaps we all KNOW that your false claims of duel loyalty are just false canards. Specious and salacious but lacking in substance.

      Perhaps someday when you grow up you can get a "name"?

      Til then?

      Israel is a giant of a nation among midgets.

    14. That it is a giant amongst midgets, well, that's beer muscles for you.

      Great Nation?
      Delusional, is more likely.

      I'll have to read quot, today.
      See which version has been doing most of the writing.

      Seems this last post was by the schizophrenic quot.

    15. Great Nations are not exemplified by Jim Crow discrimination and socialized medicine.

      Authoritative states are.

    16. Authoritative states like Alabama and Mississippi, back in 1948.
      Israel, today.

      Striving for greatest, amongst midgets, and falling short.

      Barely able to attain and maintain equivalency.

    17. Our very own General Bunker laments: desert ratSun May 19, 08:03:00 PM EDT
      That it is a giant amongst midgets, well, that's beer muscles for you.
      Great Nation?
      Delusional, is more likely.
      I'll have to read quot, today.
      See which version has been doing most of the writing.
      Seems this last post was by the schizophrenic quot.

      I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to tell all the world on what a great nation, among nations, Israel was, is and will be.

      Some small facts.

      Israel sits one 1/900th of the middle east. The arab occupation is the other 899/900th.

      Israel GNP is great than the 21 arab nations, including their oil sales.

      Now that is JUST one small point.

      Look further to more.

    18. General Bunker continues: desert ratSun May 19, 08:10:00 PM EDT
      Authoritative states like Alabama and Mississippi, back in 1948.
      Israel, today.
      Striving for greatest, amongst midgets, and falling short.
      Barely able to attain and maintain equivalency.

      Love it General Bunker.

      Please show us the parallel to 1948 Alabama and Mississippi?

      20% of Israel are Arabs. Arabic is a national language as well as Hebrew.

      They enjoy full citizenship and access to all universities. Arab sit on the Supreme Court, serve in the army, vote, are allowed to buy businesses or land anywhere within the state of Israel.

      Miss Israel last year was an Arab gal.

      Now tell us General Bunk how Israel is is like the Jim Crow laws?

      Explain your accusations without cutting and pasting from the Hebrew Haters Club website

    19. General Bunk, you raise an excellent issue.

      israel's health care...

      It provides some of the finest in the world emergency trauma care.

      It's innovations, inventions and patients equal none other if you adjust for it's tiny physical size.

      We shall go into those great lifesavers to the world very soon General Bunk. I am sure without those Israel inventions in technology you an your family most likely would not have survived this long in our modern world, let alone the computers and cell phones you take for granted.

      Israel is a giant of a nation and a people when compared to the rest of the world, Only America stands above it, but let's fact facts, America is a thousand times larger and has a population of 300 million plus.

    20. Again thanks General Bunk for allowing me to express WHY you know nothing of the modern Jewish State of Israel.

      i suggest, someday, when you get over your fear of TSA and government check points you might invest some of your government retirement pay and take a trip to Israel.

      Even you might learn something.

    21. Socialism, it is always exclaimed as the best way forward, if you have a rich Uncle.

    22. Hitler, quot wrote, was right.

      Now he extols the virtues of his new found socialist paradise.

      An Israeli National Socialist

    23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    24. desert ratSun May 19, 09:05:00 PM EDT
      Hitler, quot wrote, was right.

      When you cant discuss the issue?

      Try to throw a fire bomb.

      What a loser...


    25. But once again, thanks to General Bunk I will find and post other great stories of the amazing Nation of Israel.

    26. desert ratSun May 19, 09:02:00 PM EDT
      Socialism, it is always exclaimed as the best way forward, if you have a rich Uncle.

      America is very generous to it's friend and ally Israel, no one disputes that. But dont think that the military aid that America gives Israel provides it free ride.

      The INVESTMENT that America makes in Israel will well paid back. Think of it General Bunk, your cell phone and computer? Thank an Israeli.

    27. Those three or four rambling posts, did not even read them.

      Of course Israel gets a free ride.

      They were no where to be seen in the last two wars the US fought in the region.
      The Israeli hid under their beds, while the US took out the 'Bad Guy" in the region.
      The one that had been paying $25,000 to the families of killers of Israeli.

      A nut softer than Iran, but one much to tough for the Israeli to crack.

    28. Steve Jobs was Israeli, too?

      Bill Gates?


      All those Chinese, too?

      How that Mitochondrial DNA sure gets around.
      Lots of loose women in Israel, aye

    29. Come on General Bunk, you KNOW the truth even if it would cause that thing you call a brain to explode.

      israeli technology has been ground breaking in advancing cell phones and computers.

      but no I wont list the specifics since it's about your pay grade.

      Now General Bunk, go back to your bunker and get some Geritol

  9. WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will address the legality of his administration’s controversial drone program during a speech this week.

    A White House official says Obama will also address other counterterrorism policies, including stalled efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

    Obama pledged in his State of the Union address earlier this year to make the secret drone program more "transparent" to the public. The official says Obama was ready to deliver Thursday's speech last month, but it was postponed amid hunger strike protests at Guantanamo and other controversies that have consumed the White House.

    The official was authorized to speak about the speech only on background because Obama has yet to deliver it. The speech plans were first reported by The Washington Post.

  10. Americans’ Attention to IRS, Benghazi Stories Below Average
    Most Americans, however, say both deserve continuing investigation
    by Frank Newport

    PRINCETON, NJ -- Slim majorities of Americans are very or somewhat closely following the situations involving the Internal Revenue Service (54%) and the congressional hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and its aftermath (53%) -- comparatively low based on historical measures of other news stories over the last two decades.

    The big question of the day: What does it take to get the attention of the US public?

    We do make it so very easy for our rulers and masters. I am sure you will all agree.

    1. The main thing to understand is that Obama continues, according to CNN/ORC, to enjoy a 53% approval rating.

    2. Look at Rufus for instance.

      He really knows what has happened, yet doesn't care at all. Couldn't give a shit.

      It is not a pretty picture.

    3. .

      The main thing to understand is that Obama continues, according to CNN/ORC, to enjoy a 53% approval rating.

      Vox Sheeplei

      In the following article, the authors make the point that American attitudes on major issue like going to war are influenced by foreign opinions. However, what I took from it was that media bias, who they choose to quote, what sources they choose to print, seem to drive the opinions of the sheeple.

      In our analysis of every nightly network television story about Iraq in the eight months before the war – 1,434 stories in all – Guardino and I found that Democrats accounted for just 4 percent of all statements in the news. Other domestic sources who opposed the war, such as protesters and anti-war groups, made up an even tinier fraction. By contrast, Bush administration officials arguing for military action constituted 28 percent of all statements in the news. When we looked at national newspaper coverage, we found the same thing.

      A we've seen with the Gosnell story, the MSM picks and chooses the stories they are comfortable with to the exclusion of the others. The sheeple are often forced to make judgments on limited information.

      It's sad when you have to quote Robert Byrd as a voice of reason. Speaking of Iraq,

      Of course, some liberal Democrats, such as the late-Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), were vociferous in their opposition. “This is no small conflagration that we contemplate,” Byrd said on the Senate floor in February 2003. “It is not going to be a video game.
      But the public hardly heard any of it.


    4. >>We do make it so very easy for our rulers and masters. I am sure you will all agree.<<

      Agree here.

      I am thinking there might be a little lag time in these polls. At least I am hoping so.

      If not, then it can truly and sadly be said we are a nation where the majority of the people are sheeple.

  11. Low information voters...what a freakin' Godsend! About the IRS - considering so few Democrats other than their party elite actually pay taxes - it is no wonder they find the whole IRS thing very MEH! So, one party will continue, through their tax dollars, to subsidize the other party through their tax dollar dependency. And it will be the simple folks actually paying in who come under scrutiny while the simpletons taking out get off with EBT cards and free phones. Man, Democrat voters are expensive to have around.

    1. The average Democratic Voter pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than does Mitt Romney.

    2. And you know this how?

      Might as well say:

      The average democratic voter is on food stamps.

    3. The average Democratic Voter does not pay any taxes.

    4. States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid:
      1. New Mexico: $2.63
      2. West Virginia: $2.57
      3. Mississippi: $2.47
      4. District of Colombia: $2.41
      5. Hawaii: $2.38
      6. Alabama: $2.03
      7. Alaska: $1.93
      8. Montana: $1.92
      9. South Carolina: $1.92
      10. Maine: $1.78

      Wow, just WOW!

      Look at Mississhitti - making out like banditos, raking in $2.47 in for every $1.00 out.

      Great 'work' if you get it.

      From the unimpeachable Mother Jones -

      In this list of the top ten suckers, I don't discern any meaningful relationship Republican state/Democratic state. Seems there are some of both.

    5. Try getting that rate of return on your savings account!

    6. Not ezzackly a numerate laddie, are you boyo? I make it:

      7 Republican States

      2 Democratic States

      I don't know what the D of C is doing in there, it not being a state.

    7. You make it wrong, bozo, I make it right at 5 to 5, fudging DC as a state.

    8. We both got it wrong. I missed Hawaii.

      The Dem states are: N. Mexico, Hawaii, and Maine (although, that's kind of a toughie.)

      The Republican are all the rest

      DC is Not a state (fudgible, or otherwise.)

    9. I count W. Virginia as Dem.

      Agreeing on D.C. that would make it 5-4.

    10. W.Va voted overwhelmingly for Romney.

    11. boobie thinks of Senator Byrd, whenever West Virginia is mentioned.

      I know it dates him, but there you are.

    12. Yes, I knew you'd say that, Rufus. The W. Virginians did not like the idea of the closing of all their coal mines.

      The Senators from W. Virginia are currently Jay Rockefeller and Joe Manchin, both Democrats.

      And the current Governor is Earl Ray Tomblin, a Democrat.

      General Bunk doesn't seem to know who the Senators from W. Virginia are these days. Much less the Governor.

    13. Taking money out of the economy in the form of taxes and spending it to boost the economy is like trying to ward off starvation by eating a limb.

    14. And, the Senators from Maine are one Republican, and one Independent.

  12. Here is a song that is always appropriate for a Sunday.

    The Righteous Brothers, Rock and Roll Heaven

  13. ABC News' Jonathan Karl expressed "regret" over his reporting on Benghazi in a statement on Sunday.

    Karl, the network's White House correspondent, recently provoked controversy after his exclusive report that quoted emails which allegedly showed the Obama administration made numerous edits to, and scrubbed information from the talking points on Benghazi. He said that ABC News had reviewed emails in question, but it was later revealed that the quotes were actually from a source claiming to have summarized the emails, and were misleading.

    On Sunday's "Reliable Sources," Howard Kurtz relayed a statement from the ABC News correspondent: "Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it's become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately."

    Guest David Shuster came down hard on Karl on Sunday, saying, "The story was wrong. The attribution was wrong. And he's still not characterizing the source as a Republican source, even though other news organizations are already doing that. So I just think the problems continue for ABC News in all of this."

    1. Well then, that clears it up.

      It was the Republicans who put out the story about the video from LA causing all the trouble at Benghazi.

      Should have guessed.

      And I'll bet that when the smoke clears we will find it was the Republicans who ordered the IRS to investigate themselves, and other of their political kissing cousins, like the Tea Party and Libertarians.

  14. This guy -

    was at the stables the whole weekend. Daughter was invited to dinner.

    Big name among the cowboys.

  15. SEIA estimates that photovoltaic (PV) energy will account for about 1.1 gigawatts of new military PV capacity added in the five-year period from 2012 to 2017, which is about equal to the entire installed global solar capacity in 2000.

    In terms of domestic facilities, the move to solar and other forms of locally sourced, renewable energy makes bottom line sense for the military. It provides a more secure supply chain that is buffered against grid disruptions, it opens the potential for a long term downward trend in energy costs, and it helps to insulate the Pentagon’s budget from fuel price spikes and supply issues related to global forces beyond its control.

    That last point is a key one, even without sequester-related cuts. The Pentagon has a gigantic budget but not an infinite one, and when fuel prices spike up that cuts into the fuel budget for training and readiness.

    Solar Power On The Battlefield

    In addition to a thorough rundown of domestic solar installations, the SEIA report will also give you a good grasp of the important role that solar power is beginning to play in forward operations overseas.

    Combined with energy storage, solar power provides off-grid, portable on-the-go energy generation capability that is less noisy and noxious than diesel generators. Solar power is mechanically more reliable than diesel-fueled generators, and the military has been moving swiftly from stationary solar set-ups to solar-in-a-suitcase kits that can be set up and broken down on the fly.


  16. Solar canopies do double duty as sun shades, providing a moveable force with more bang for the buck. That goes double for solar-in-a-backpack kits and other forms of wearable solar devices that help cut down on the heavy load of batteries that ground forces typically slog about.

    Solar-powered charging devices also help cut down on the whole portable battery supply chain issue, including disposal, which overall has been described as a “logistical nightmare,”

    A New Definition Of National Defense

    Petroleum dependency exposes US forces to alliances that are not otherwise in the nation’s best interest and put our troops at risk. In more direct terms, as the SEIA report points out, it literally costs lives when fuel convoys expose troops and other personnel to attack.

    The converse is that renewable forms of energy like solar power saves lives, and you can see the domestic reflection of that in the Army’s Net Zero initiative. The immediate goal is just what it says, to achieve net zero energy, water and waste at Army facilities in the US, which includes transitioning from grid-supplied energy to on site or hyper-local sources of renewable energy.


    Report on Military Solar Use

  17. This comment has been removed by the author.


    The Democrats are now arguing it doesn't matter where Barky was during Benghazi.

    Presumably in bed is as good a place as any other.

    1. Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer said it's an "irrelevant fact" where the president physically was during the Benghazi terror attack on September 11, 2012


      >>Asked about whether the president entered the Situation Room, Pfeiffer says, "I don't remember what room the president was in on that night, and that's a largely irrelevant fact."<<

      Try: Bedroom

  19. The secret of Barky's power over the unwashed masses-

    >>Sometimes, we think of power in terms of “following the leader,” Nichols said, which focuses on a president's formal power as the nation's chief executive, the free world's symbolic leader and his political party's de facto head. “Furthermore, we know that ‘knowledge is power,' which focuses us on the power a president has in exploiting his personal reputation as an expert in an area.”

    But presidents also wield power by influencing those who deeply admire, strongly identify with or highly respect them. This is referent power, which focuses on ability to exploit others' trust.

    Celebrities — with no formal power and little expertise — wield influence through referent power; some people feel so close to and trustful of celebrities that they act upon their perceptions of what a celebrity wants them to do.

    “To be clear, referent power does not work through order, command or threat,” Nichols explained. “Instead, it works through suggestion and the creativity of the fawning admirer.”<<

    President Obama's Incredible "Referent Power"

    By Salena Zito - May 19, 2013

    This explains why so many, even some here, cling to Obama like a soap opera star, even though the evidence is clear he is a manipulating, unethical, immoral, lying wannabe despot.


    About those “doctored” Benghazi e-mails…

    posted at 5:01 pm on May 19, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

    >>The incorrect versions – and they were inaccurate quotes – were not generated by GOP operatives. They were extracted by ABC’s Jon Karl from notes taken by attendees at the original meeting when the White House refused to initially allow anyone to have copies which could have been used for....

    ....Were there differences? Yes, and we should be careful in providing an accurate record of what was written, so older versions should be expunged and replaced. But does this change the essential testimony being offered from the e-mails? Not to speak of. And what differences there are were not generated by the GOP, but by quick note taking which was picked up by Jon Karl. Just keep that in mind as the White House continues to try to squirm their way out of this. full referencing. ABC went with the notes, being the closest thing anyone had to an official record, and the GOP worked off those notes<<

    Rufus foiled again.

  21. .

    I found this kind of interesting.

    In September 2012, civil unrest, large scale protests and demonstrations as well as violent attacks – some of which were in reaction to an anti-Islamic video and cartoons - targeted U.S. missions and schools overseas including in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, and Yemen.

    This from a worldwide alert at Travel.State.Gov

    While the wording allows them to say they didn't really say Libya was the result of the video, the obvious weasel-wording is evident to me and likely any who have taken an interest in the subject.

    Also, under Trave.State.Gov in a blip specific to Libyan travel, I notice that while a June, 2012 bombing in Benghazi is reported there is no mention of our ambassador being killed in September.


    1. There certainly was a spontaneous protest in Benghazi.
      General P testified to that, before Congress on 13SEP2012.

      As reported in the WSJ ...

      Sept. 13, Thursday:

      Then-CIA Director David Petraeus presented the CIA's initial findings to the Senate Intelligence Committee. His conclusions mirrored that morning's intelligence reporting. He said the attack began "spontaneously" following the protest in Cairo over the video. He also discussed the reports of involvement of Ansar al-Sharia and the al Qaeda affiliate and called the assault a terrorist attack.

      Was General P speaking incorrectly when he briefed the Committee?

    2. What does General P know ...
      When did he know it?

    3. .

      He was obviously speaking incorrectly.

      And I look forward to him being requestioned during the hearings. Not sure if the GOP can keep this going until 2014 but they will sure try.


  22. .

    For those pushing for us to establish a no-fly zone over Syria in hopes of pushing Assad out, Libya should be an object lesson.

    We attacked MQ purportedly to save lives in Benghazi. Now we have been driven out of Benghazi and it looks like Tripoli might be next.

    How well has that Western intervention worked out in Libya? Starting well over a year ago, Western nations all pulled out of Benghazi — the city the intervention was supposed to protect — after it became clear to all but the US that radical Islamist “militias” had seized control of the city and region. The US pulled out of Benghazi only after a terrorist attack by Ansar al-Sharia somehow caught the State Department and White House by surprise … on the anniversary of 9/11. Afterward, the nations that staged the military decapitation of Moammar Qaddafi all fell back to Tripoli, where security could be better maintained.

    At least until now...


  23. Sept. 15, Saturday

    The CIA offered a revised version of the talking points, and the officials from the White House and other agencies provided final approval early in the afternoon.

    Top officials discussed the changes at the White House.

    Michael Morell, then CIA deputy director and now acting director, spoke with the CIA station chief in Tripoli, who expressed concern that the agency's reporting was off the mark. The station chief said there was no protest ongoing at the time of the attack, and said he didn't think the attack was spontaneous. Mr. Morell asked the chief to summarize his views in an email so the analysts at Langley could evaluate his take along with more than a dozen other internal intelligence reports, Mr. Morell later told lawmakers.

    Believe any story you want.

    Sept. 16, Sunday

    The CIA's Tripoli station chief sent an email about the issue of protests in Benghazi, but the agency didn't immediately change its assessment. Some former officials criticized that decision. At the time, analysts at CIA gave greater weight to multiple reports from the scene that pointed to a protest.
    The Tripoli station chief wasn't in Benghazi during the attack.

  24. Sept. 20, Thursday

    Based on fresh information, the CIA changed its assessment to conclude that a protest did not directly precede the attack. The agency provided that information to top national-security officials at the White House.
    Oct. 11

    The State Department acknowledged there was no protest before the attack.

    Here, there, anywhere.

    Which of the revisions is accurate, if any?

    What kind of lasers did the CIA have on the roof of the annex building?

    Why was the Ambassador there?
    Who leaked the information?

    1. About the Ambassador being in Benghazi.

    2. In the back-and-forth at the CIA, the references to al Qaeda became a subject of acute debate. Some warned that naming al Qaeda could expose classified information and compromise U.S. efforts to gather more intelligence about the activities of the suspected militants involved.

      After rounds of bureaucratic exchanges, the CIA officials seeking to remove al Qaeda won the argument, and officials agreed to retain the umbrella term "extremists" but drop the mention of al Qaeda.

      Late in the afternoon of Sept. 14, CIA officials sent the draft of the talking points to other government agencies, including the Director of National Intelligence, the White House, the State Department and the FBI.

      The White House and the State Department asked that the word "consulate" and be dropped, suggesting the talking points say "diplomatic post" instead. The State Department did not consider the Benghazi a full-fledged consulate.

    3. .

      I've asked you this before. What makes you think that the Ambassador's visit to Benghazi was 'leaked' or even had to be leaked since there was nothing secret about the visit itself, that is, if you can believe the State Department?

      Have you seen some reporting along these lines that would make you ask?


    4. I would surmise that the leak would have come from the Turks.

      I do not believe that the Ambassador's trip was publicized, even if it was not 'secret'.

      It is about the 'only' theory not mentioned. Which raises the probability that it should be.


    5. .

      I also haven't seen a theory mentioned that the Knights Templar were involved either.



    6. .

      You didn't mention who you were quoting above, but I am just assuming it was the WSJ.

      Here's a guy who doesn't think much of that article.


    7. .

      At the time, analysts at CIA gave greater weight to multiple reports from the scene that pointed to a protest.

      There's a ball game on right now but when I get time I will try to dig up the article that stated the CIA analysts were basing their view that it was a spontaneous protest on the basis of the numerous MSM reports that picked up that false meme and flew with it.

      If this is the quality of our CIA 'analysts', heck I want that job. I could sit around all day reading the paper and watching TV and then offering the stories back as I do my 'analyzing' thing.


    8. It was a CIA operation, with an expendable "ambassador" as cover. Naturally they're going to lie about it.

    9. The perfect job for Quirk!

    10. Teresita is on the correct scent.

    11. I had mentioned the WSJ somewhere up thread but, yes, it was the WSJ.

      Whatever was happening in Benghazi, the State Department was part of the side show, not the 'Real Deal'.

      The real deal, that was dealt by the CIA.

    12. I imagine it's a buyer's market for the next "ambassador" job in breakaway rebel Syria.

    13. Rat too is on the scent.

    14. Something is rotten in Denmark.

    15. That piece that Q linked to, puts the CIA in it up to their noses.

      I am sure that the President knows exactly what the people at the CIA wanted him to know.
      He delegates, then washes his hands.

      Does not seem like a real hands on kind of a guy.
      Never has.

  25. Just have faith. Barky promised us during the campaign he was going to get to the bottom of this.

    Your questions are Barky's questions too.

    Need to give it a little more time.

    Maybe, three year or so.


  26. Anonymous Cincinnati IRS official: “Everything comes from the top.”

    May 19, 2013 | 12:30 pm

    Sean Higgins

    Senior Editorial Writer
    TheWashington Examiner
    ✉ Email Author E@seanghiggins

    >>>A story in the Washington Post yesterday about the Internal Revenue Service’s Cincinnati office, which does most of the agency’s nonprofit auditing, clearly contradicted earlier reports that the agency’s targeting of Tea Party groups was the result of rogue agents.

    The Post story anonymously quoted a staffer in Cincinnati as saying they only operate on directives from headquarters:

    As could be expected, the folks in the determinations unit on Main Street have had trouble concentrating this week. Number crunchers, whose work is nonpolitical, don’t necessarily enjoy the spotlight, especially when the media and the public assume they’re engaged in partisan villainy.

    “We’re not political,’’ said one determinations staffer in khakis as he left work late Tuesday afternoon. “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do. . . . That’s why there are so many people here who are flustered. Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”

    The staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said that the determinations unit is competent and without bias, that it grouped together conservative applications “for consistency’s sake” — so one application did not sail through while a similar one was held up in review. This consistency is paramount in the review of all applications, according to Ronald Ran, an estate-tax lawyer who worked for 37 years in the IRS’s Cincinnati office.

    This pretty plainly contradicts the story coming out of the IRS that rogue agents in Cincinnati were responsible:

    News of (acting IRS commissioner Steve) Miller’s resignation followed revelations that the IRS has identified two “rogue” employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office as being principally responsible for the “overly aggressive” handling of requests by conservative groups for tax-exempt status, a congressional source told CNN.

    Miller said the staffers have already been disciplined, according to another source familiar with Miller’s discussions with congressional investigators. The second source said Miller emphasized that the problem with IRS handling of tax-exempt status for tea party groups was not limited to these two employees.

    In related news, I also noted how the Post’s story on the Cincinnati office also appears to contradict what Miller told Congress this week about how many auditors the IRS has covering nonprofit groups. Miller said the figure was between 140-200, but the Post story puts the figure at 900. The Post doesn’t source the figure, but presumably that also came from people the reporters talked with in Cincinnati.<<<

    1. Of course it comes from the top.

      Those guys don't want to get fired.

    2. Remember, it was a Bush appointee that was in charge of the IRS when all this was going on.

    3. Which is why no government employee should ever be trusted.

      Dance to the tune of Bush, dance to the tune of Obama, no difference. Dance, dance.

      Under Bush this kind of crap wasn't going on.

      You have to go back to Nixon.

      The dance master makes the difference.

  27. Introducing the Obama Scandal Bracket!
    Jon Gabriel · 19 hours ago

    Scandal Bracket

    With so many White House scandals—and new ones popping up every day—how are average citizens supposed to keep track? Wouldn't it be nice if Obama went on ESPN and mapped them all on a bracket?

    Why wait for next year's March Madness when you can start May Madness today? Introducing the Obama Scandal Bracket!

    Click here for a full-size version and vote for the scandal you think will bring down the president -->

    1. So far I've got 'Profiling Tea Party' and 'Asking group to report prayers' into the semi-finals of the IRS Scandal Division.

    2. I am relying on Rufus to add new breaking scandals to the 'Wildcard Division'.


    3. You guys have a problem. You hate Obama so much that you just can't accept that the rest of the American people kind of like him.

      You keep thinking that if they just "knew what you know" they would hate him, too; but, it's not true. They do know as much about him as you do, and they Have decided that it's you people that they don't much care for.

      The Pubs ran into the same problem with Bill Clinton. They tried to impeach him, and got slaughtered in the 6 year election - a very rare happenstance.

    4. Your problem is you will excuse anything, if it's your guy.

      You would be screaming to high heaven if Bush were asking for the content of people's prayers, of your prayers.

      Think about that shit. They wanted to know the content of prayers!!!!

      Admit it.

      You are in the business now of excusing the inexcusable.

      For shame!

    5. THAT request didn't happen in a vacuum. I'd have to see more info on that request. :)

  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. The dangers inherent in helicopter operations ...

      Two elite FBI agents were killed Friday during a training exercise off the coast of Virginia Beach.

      Veteran Special Agents Christopher Lorek and Stephen Shaw were killed during an exercise that involved a helicopter. The accident happened aboard a Navy Military Sealift Command Ship, which the FBI leases from the Navy, sources told WAVY-TV. The FBI was tight-lipped about the nature of the accident.

      Read more:

    2. The United States Military probably hasn't tried a helicopter insertion into a hot Urban LZ since Mogadishu.

    3. They lost one chopper getting Osama.

    4. And, that wasn't even a "Hot" LZ.

  29. Where do you get the idea that it was specifically a helicopter insertion that was being requested?

    A fly by of some jets, a C-130, anything.....

    1. Help! was being requested.

    2. The 30 Ameros that escaped were largely unarmed, therefore they were granted safe passage by the compassionate Muzzies.

      Any armed forces sent into that Death Trap woulda been wiped out.

      Any armed air-assets woulda been shot outta the sky.

      General Rufus says so.

      Thus it is so.

    3. A "FLY-BY" of "SOME JETS?!?!"


      Are you, honestly, not aware of the extent to which you're embarrassing yourself?

    4. Because that is what the Marines would use to insert, boobie.
      Fly from Italy in a helicopter, in the dead of night, and land in the midst of a firefight.

      C-130's are great gunships, but they are not that good in urban environments, where collateral damage is likely to be extreme. Especially in non-war zones where the civilians are not evacuated.

      Spectre gunships they carry much more impact than Hellfire missiles.
      If the C130 was not a Specte it would have been of no value in Benghazi.

      Fly by?
      That would be less effective than CIA gunslingers laying red dots on the enemy mortar crew, to intimidate them instead of taking the shot.

    5. Exactly correct, dougo.

      The US arrives in daylight, meets with our proxies in the city and withdraw US personnel.

      The other option an armed night insertion into an ongoing firefight.

      At least two of the four KIA were already down.
      The situation on the ground was, obviously, not clear to anyone in DC.

      Two days later General P said there was a spontaneous protest that morphed into an attack.
      His people were the ones on the ground, and he did not know the real deal?


      Remember Black Hawk Down?
      Recall SEAL Team Six, losing choppers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan?
      In Afghanistan 30 some US lives lost.

      One Shithook Down

    6. Whatever was going on, the CIA wanted no one else on site.

      They had the ball, the commo, the weapons and the shooters to use them,in Benghazi.
      That is well known, now.

      The CIA operation, it needed the night.

      Which goes back to the first version of the 'Story', where the CIA folk at the annex were told to 'Stand Down'.
      Then, in a revised version of the story, they were ordered to move to the compound and evacuate the US personnel.

    7. Generals Rufus and Bunk are full of shit and bunk.

      I've read so many opinions by military people to the contrary, people that know what they are talking about.

      Next time I run across one I'll post it.


    8. >>>DougSun May 19, 11:53:00 PM EDT

      The 30 Ameros that escaped were largely unarmed, therefore they were granted safe passage by the compassionate Muzzies.

      Any armed forces sent into that Death Trap woulda been wiped out.

      Any armed air-assets woulda been shot outta the sky.

      General Rufus says so.

      Thus it is so.<<<

      I think Doug is saying, he doesn't buy your bunk either.


    9. Why would the CIA at the annex be told to stay away from the compound?

      Why would that have been reported, if not a nugget of truth.

      Who was told to 'Stand Down' varies with each revised telling of the Story Benghazi.

    10. .

      Rat, you are drifting again.

      Listen to yourself.

      Why would that have been reported, if not a nugget of truth.

      Hell, why was everyone saying the attack came as a result of the Muhammad video? This is on a par with your assertion that the Turkish ambassador leaked Stevens location to the terrorists.


  30. Hillary was begged for six months previous for more security at Benghazi. She didn't have time for it.

    1. Place was not a "real" Consulate.
      It was a CIA cover.

      That is why she would not have time for it.
      What was happening in Benghazi was not on her plate.
      Rand Paul help Ms Clinton make that clear, with his questions and her response to it.


    2. Wrong O

      Stevens was a 'Real' Ambassador.

      This makes it Hillary's Real business.

      Agreeing that it was a front, a Real Ambassador was Really appealing for some Real help from a Real Secretary of State, and it was Really turned down, both before and during the attack.

  31. For the children -

    IRS request concerning prayers of an Iowa-based anti-abortion group, and the response of their lawyer --

  32. Something different to chew on:

    "I think government entanglement with religion is a very dangerous thing," he said in a telephone interview Thursday. "When you go into a state park cabin and the only piece of religious literature there is a Protestant Bible, that suggests the government's endorsed that particular perspective."

    Read more:

    I'll boycott the courthouse if they have a bible in it to get out of my next court date!

    1. :)

      Good Luck; Let us know how that turns out, will ya? :)

    2. Isn't easier just to take 'em to a restaurant?

    3. Preferably one that sells alcohol? :)

    4. Not yet.
      But if this marriage counseling doesn't work for us it may be in our future.

      Or if I get called for jury duty.

  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

  34. At the time, analysts at CIA gave greater weight to multiple reports from the scene that pointed to a protest.

    There's a ball game on right now but when I get time I will try to dig up the article that stated the CIA analysts were basing their view that it was a spontaneous protest on the basis of the numerous MSM reports that picked up that false meme and flew with it.

    If this is the quality of our CIA 'analysts', heck I want that job. I could sit around all day reading the paper and watching TV and then offering the stories back as I do my ‘analyzing’ thing.


  35. More help for the confused by it all --

    May 19, 2013
    The Complete IRS Scandal Timeline in Spreadsheet Format
    Thomas Lifson

    >>A huge thank-you to Doug Ross of the invaluable Director Blue website for compiling a complete timeline of the IRS scandal. So many lies and misleading statements have already been made that the American public must evaluate Obama administration representations clasely, and compare them to the known record.<<

    Here it is:

  36. At least 10 policemen have been killed after unidentified gunmen attacked a police station in the Iraqi city of Rawah, northwest of Baghdad, police officials say.

    The attack took place on Sunday evening in the city, located about 320km northwest of Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.

    The base commander was among those killed, a police source told Al Jazeera.

    Qais al-Rawi, the head of the area's local council, meanwhile, said that gunmen had killed and wounded the police officers in an attack on their station, and that they also assaulted and set fire to an army position.

    There were 15 soldiers and an officer at the position, Rawi said, and their fate is unknown.

    There have been a number of attacks in recent weeks on security forces in Anbar province, home to Ramadi and Fallujah, two centres of Sunni protests that broke out almost five months ago.

    Up to 10 people were kidnapped in Anbar on Saturday, according to security officials.

    Tensions between the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shia Muslim, and Iraqi Sunni Muslims, have been running high in recent months, with the latter accusing authorities of marginalising and targeting their community.

    The government has made some concessions, such as freeing prisoners and raising the salaries of Sunni anti-Al-Qaeda fighters, but protests against Maliki’s government have persisted.

    Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

  37. With 10 years of extra-judicial drone strikes. Would it be so hard to imagine where these “new elements” of terror — the freshly minted martyrs and the al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Yemen, Pakistan, North Africa and beyond – were coming from?

    “I think we’re living in a world where we are not going to be immune to the payback for some of the things that we’ve done. And unless—unless we, as a society, completely re-imagine what an actual national security policy would look like, one that recognizes the dignity of other people around the world or the rights of people to practice their religion or determine their form of government, unless we’re willing to re-imagine how we approach the world, we’re doomed to have a repeat of a 9/11-type attack or something that’s smaller-scale but constant,” Scahill noted in a recent interview with Democracy Now!

    * * *
    “Iraq,” Scahill wrote in Dirty Wars, “would serve as a laboratory for creating a new kill/capture machine, centered on JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), run by (Gen. Stanley) McChrystal and accountable to no one but a small group of White House and Pentagon insiders.”

    With sources cultivated over years, Scahill is able to piece together a timeline in which McChrystal, a career special forces officer with extraordinary “stomach and stamina for the fight,” as well as one of the Pentagon’s “fellow travelers in the great crusade against Islam,” is paired with a messianic White House that with a roll of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s ball point pen, was able facilitate not only JSOC’s new lead in all counter-terror operations, but its ability to operate “and hit targets” outside the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    What happens, as richly told in the book, is what could only be described in biblical terms: something like the four horsemen of the apocalypse, searching, seeking and vanquishing for the ultimate cleansing of the world.

    JSOC was built up in Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct surveillance, interrogations and killing, parallel to (and often sidelining) the CIA and the conventional military, but without the congressional oversight that bound those other institutions. Soon, thanks to the Bush White House, JSOC was independently establishing “liaison offices” across the Middle East for the manhunt, no permission necessary.

  38. As a result, Al Qaeda, led by Abu Masab al Zarqawi, bloomed and flourished in Iraq and contributed to the ensuing civil war. “Although General Petraeus would be credited years later with ‘winning’ the Iraq War through a troop ‘surge,’ he had also, along with Zarqawi, helped to destroy Iraq and create a sectarian bloodbath that would live on well past the U.S occupation,” charges Scahill.

    Dirty Wars doesn’t dwell on Iraq – Scahill takes full advantage of his field reporting in Somalia to turn over the rocks there, as well as the real story behind the drone deaths of American Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son in 2011 (including interviews with family), and the hunt for al Qaeda in Pakistan.

    Today, the Global War on Terror has been institutionalized by the Obama White House, “using drone, cruise missile and Special Ops raids,” in “a mission to kill its way to victory,” Scahill writes. “Future U.S presidents – Republican or Democratic – will inherit a streamlined process for assassinating enemies of America, perceived or real. They will inherit an executive branch with sweeping powers, rationalized under the banner of national security.”

    Scahill surmises that, “no one can scientifically predict the future consequences” of the aforementioned activities. “But, from my experience in several undeclared war zones across the globe, it seems clear that the United States is helping to breed a new generation of enemies in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world.”

    Last week’s timing on the release of Dirty Wars – along with its accompanying award-winning documentary of the same name – serves as a opportune counterbalance to the prevailing narrative, that what happened in Boston was some unprovoked attack in the “struggle” against terror, which ignores America’s own role in that struggle all along.

    There is no excusing the pain and fear the suspects in the case inflicted on Boston that day, but to deny reality is to simply perpetuate the cycle. Thanks to Scahill’s willingness to reach into dark places, we have one more tool with which to try and reverse it.


  39. I can only conclude that our current government must think the Christians to be subversive.

    After all, did not Jesus recommend:

    King James Bible

    Matthew 6:6

    >>>>But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.<<<<

    We simply cannot have private prayer in this Republic. It is a national security threat, and an instance of and possible inducement to the beginnings of civil insurrection.

    I pray thee
    A grr'nite.

  40. All the usual suspects are still aligned to get us involved in Syria. All of them.

  41. If only all religions could be dragged into the trash and deleted. All of them.

    1. The last fallback - if the argument is going downhill, pull out the applicable "good book," and start preaching scripture.

  42. .

    I've posted articles from Diplopundit before. The following one lists those countries designated 'high risk' and 'danger' (as indicated by danger premiums paid) for diplomatic missions.


  43. "desert ratMon May 20, 12:05:00 AM EDT

    Exactly correct, dougo.

    The US arrives in daylight, meets with our proxies in the city and withdraw US personnel.

    The other option an armed night insertion into an ongoing firefight.

    At least two of the four KIA were already down.
    The situation on the ground was, obviously, not clear to anyone in DC.

    Two days later General P said there was a spontaneous protest that morphed into an attack.
    His people were the ones on the ground, and he did not know the real deal?


    Remember Black Hawk Down?
    Recall SEAL Team Six, losing choppers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan?
    In Afghanistan 30 some US lives lost.

    One Shithook Down


    EVERYONE is aware of the tremendous advantages enjoyed by the high-tech Muzzies over the hapless GI's in the black of night.

    Said GI's, no matter how brave, are but victims abandoned to death in the slaughterhouse of darkness that Hillary and Obama (in his sleep) courageously risked their reputions to avoid.

    The Sheer Bravery and Patriotism overwhelms.

  44. Heavens to Betsy:

    An armed insertion into the disease ridden darkness of the Libyan Vagina could only result in mass infection and death for our troops.

    Certainly, neither Hillary nor The One would ever tolerate a single collateral casualty to save our ambasador begging for his life or his cohorts.

    Collaterals wiped out by Dronings, not in the same ballpark for these Paragons of Ethical Purity.

    Armed Drones over Ben Gazi?

    Not an option.

    Just because.

    (we await the eternal justifications from you-know who, and, know who, else.)


  45. "Collaterals wiped out by Dronings, not in the same ballpark"

    (as the EVIL death and destruction delivered by our very own all American, Arlen Specter.)

  46. "...into an ongoing firefight."

    In which a few brave men held off the terrorists long enough to enable the evacuation of THIRTY Americans.

    ...but a larger number of armed forces backed up by air-support woulda been wiped out in the darkness.


    ...or their Helicopters woulda collided with 130's in the Desert and they all woulda been incinerated.

    Jimmy, and Rufie, and The Rat tell us so.

  47. Superb blog! Do you have any helpful hints for aspiring writers?
    I'm hoping to start my own site soon but I'm
    a little lost on everything. Would you propose starting with a free platform like Wordpress or go for a paid option?

    There are so many choices out there that I'm totally overwhelmed .. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot!

    Have a look at my site :: diese Internetseite