“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."

Saturday, April 11, 2015

More Dirty Rotten Stinking US Cops - US Cops are killing 70 times more people than any other First World Country

Walter Scott: large crowd attends funeral of man shot by police officer Pastor tells mourners North Charleston man died because of ‘overt racism’ 

A large crowd gathered on Saturday for the funeral of Walter Scott, the 50-year-old black man who died after being shot in the back by a white police officer in South Carolina – an incident that put the North Charleston police department’s rocky relationship with the African American community on the national stage.

Scott was killed a week ago, after being stopped by police officer Michael Slager, who said Scott’s car had a broken brake light. A video released on Tuesday showed Slager shooting eight bullets at Scott, who was running away. The stark image strayed from Slager’s claim that Scott had “tried to overpower him”.

 Scott’s funeral, which was open to the public, began at 11am ET at the city of Summerville’s Word Ministries Christian Center, the venue chosen by Scott’s family, who worship there every Sunday. 

 The hall quickly reached capacity, leaving around 100 mourners outside. The rain began to beat down and many, dressed in their Sunday best, took refuge under the porch. Some spilled out and stood under umbrellas. One mourner, Lawrence Gordon, said he had come to the church because “I have kids too and I am a concerned parent and a concerned citizen and I feel everyone should get involved … not only for this family, but for the shooter’s family also, because they were blindsided too. No one saw this coming, this tragedy. 

 “I am so sorry that this had to happen this way,” he continued. “But I hope that this can close the gap between the police department and the communities, that they can learn to recognise each other as citizens. I’m hoping and praying that it doesn’t happen again.” The video of the shooting of Scott was captured on an iPhone by Feidin Santana, a local man who was walking to work at the time. 

 “I thank God for that young man that God put in place to highlight that tape,” Gordon said. “If it wasn’t for that, this wouldn’t have happened today.” 

Gordon’s words were echoed inside the church by pastor George Hamilton, who told mourners Scott’s death was the result of “overt racism” and added: “Keep your phone handy; keep your charge up. You never know when you need to be around.” 

 Outside, another mourner, who said he had been a neighbour of the Scott family for 13 years, gave his name only as Rodney. He said: “He was a good guy, wonderful; we never had no problems. We looked after each other in the neighbourhood. This should never have happened to him. “As a father, I know what his dad and his mother are going through. I lost my son. Just to see something like this happen, I’m glad that he made real history, to show everybody you just can’t treat people like that.” 

 Other churches in the region held vigils and other services. In downtown North Charleston on Friday, a public viewing was held at the Fielding Funeral Home. A handful of police officers were stationed for crowd control purposes, but the stream of family, friends and community members was calm. 

 Brittany Williams, a stay at home mom, said Scott was engaged to the grandmother of her child. She had never met him, but said he was known as “a big, friendly man”. She had come to the vigil with friends, including Desiree Dickerson, who also had not met Scott. Both women said they came because they believed Scott should not have died the way he did. 

“We came out to show our respect,” Dickerson said. Events were scheduled through the weekend. The North Charleston United Methodist Churches were due to host a prayer vigil and walk, beginning at the scene of the shooting, on Saturday evening. The North Charleston campus of Seacoast Church said it would hold a vigil the following night. Protesters from the Black Lives Matter movement – which arose nationwide after a number of deaths of black men at the hands of police officers last year – said they would not demonstrate on Saturday, out of respect for the family. 

 Friday night, however, saw the expiration of a deadline such protesters set for the city council to respond to their demands. Demonstrators had asked for the city to create a citizen’s review board with subpoena powers, and have asked that the government agree to call an emergency meeting to discuss the creation of such a group. 

Because the city has not responded, more peaceful demonstrations are planned.  

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SCLED) is investigating the shooting. Its chief said on Thursday that it had raised concerns about what its officers had seen at the scene. “We believed early on that there was something not right about what happened in that encounter,” Mark Keel said in a statement. 

 Scott’s family has said that he may have run from the officer because of the thousands of dollars he owed in child support. He referenced some of those missed payments in a 2003 article with local newspaper the Post and Courier. 

 “I got mad at everybody in the whole world because I just lost the best job I ever had,” Scott said at the time. “I just stopped doing everything. I just closed myself into a little shell and started doing things I shouldn’t have been doing.” He was interviewed as part of a story about a program meant to help fathers who had missed child support payments, called Father to Father. Whether there was a warrant out for Scott’s arrest and how much he owed in child support both remain unclear. 

 Slager has been fired from the force, and charged with murder. He is being held at Charleston County Detention Center. The North Charleston police department said it would continue providing his family with health insurance until after his wife, who is eight months pregnant, gives birth. 


  1. How can you stand to come back to this horrid country after Europe ?

    By the way hope you had a nice trip.

  2. I was just in three European countries. The police in Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands are as well armed or more so than the cop in this video. There is no justification for this. This happens in fascist countries. It is a national disgrace. I have seen enough of these videos to come to the conclusion that there is something far more wrong than the occasional rogue cop.

    If this doesn’t bother you, I don’t know what would.

    1. I am not certain I am totally buying that about the European cops. The French cops that first came on the attack on the cartoon paper headquarters, for instance, had to beat a hasty retreat, as they had no arms.

      Also the European countries do not have a 2nd Amendment. The people in most European countries are disarmed, except maybe in Switzerland.

      Here the criminals usually have guns. Hence the cops need them too. Better ones in fact.

      Not defending the police in this incident though.

      There are all sorts of factors that need to be in the mix.

      I've read several times that if one subtracts out our inner city violence the USA is as peaceful as the EU. This doesn't make it a fact, it makes it something on which I should read further. It fits with what I know of our country, though.

  3. Is everyone all fired up about Hillary's big announcement tomorrow ?

    Wow, I am.

    I was so fearful she might not run.

    What this country needs is a truly nauseating politicocorruptocrat such as Hillary to lead us in these parlous times.

  4. There are a lot of things wrong about this entire subject. I have posted before my objection to US civilian police being allowed to be in the National Guard or the military reserve units. The militarization of civil police is absurd, wrong and unnecessary and it is clearly dangerous.

    1. The first thing I would do is make them remove the American flag from their uniform. American flags have no place on civil police uniforms. We can safely assume that the cops are not Mexican or Russian police. It sends a message that they are on the right side, the American side, and all civilians are not. Professional policing has nothing to do with nationalism. Cops are not representing American values or American anything. They are community servants not national guardsman. They have no authority vested in them by US federal authorities.

    2. How do the police act in Russia? China? or in Iran?

      These are the nations you seem to hold up as shining examples of decency....

    3. Deuce, I ask an intelligent question and you say that?


      The cops in the Palestinian territories, the Syrians and the Iranians (your pals) kills thousands of times as many as America. And yet you are silent...


    4. I don't have a problem with the US flag on a cop's uniform. Firefighters sometimes where them too.

      I would make those new body cameras mandatory though. And audio recording devices.

      That's good for everyone.

      On the body and in the patrol car both.

    5. wear then not where them

      If you can see your mistakes you are still functioning !

    6. Make the US flag on a cop's uniform a local option.

      Have the city council vote on the matter.

      In fact the city councils of America could ban the flag on the local police uniforms right now if they wished.

  5. April 11, 2015
    Iran framework deal sounding more and more like it doesn't exist
    By Rick Moran

    The framework agreement with Iran announced last week by the White House consisted of a 2 page memorandum outlining what the deal covered.

    But there have been so many differences in interpretation by Iran and the US, that it makes you wonder if there's any agreement at all?

    The Hill:

    Iran supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's claim that the United States is “lying” about the terms of a framework nuclear agreement will not derail the negotiations, the White House said Friday.

    “The test of whether or not that framework can be memorialized in a deal is not going to be a comment on any given day by a particular Iranian leader,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters.

    Whether a final deal is reached will depend on the ability of negotiators from the U.S., Iran and five other world powers to produce a document by the end of June that “meets our core objectives of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Rhodes said.

    Khamenei on Thursday accused the U.S. of publishing a fact sheet about the framework agreement that misrepresented what was agreed to, particularly on the pace of sanctions relief and inspections of nuclear sites.

    The ayatollah’s comments raised concerns that the differences between Iran and other world powers would be too vast to reach a final deal by the June 30 deadline.

    Republicans, meanwhile, have seized on his remarks to argue that the “framework” announced last week wasn’t really a deal at all.

    “The Ayatollah and President Obama appear to be talking about two separate agreements and unfortunately, I can’t say I’m surprised,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is considering a run for president in 2016, said in a statement Friday.

    “President Obama wants a deal way too badly, and his administration has been trying to sell a deal which may not actually exist,” he added.

    Under the framework agreement, Iran would accept limits on its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions that have crippled its economy.

    Iran has called for the sanctions to be removed upon the completion of a deal, but the U.S. and its negotiating partners want them lifted gradually as Iran proves it is abiding by the terms of an agreement.

    Basically, Rhodes is saying only we can spin what the deal means, not the Iranians.

    And it isn't just that the two sides aren't on the same page as far as what was negotiated in the framework deal. They are talking about two different deals - one with sanctions lifted immediately upon implementation and one where sanctions are lifted gradually. One where nuclear inspections are severe and complete and another where military sites are off limits to inspectors. One where the facility at Fordow is converted into a kind of nuclear school and another where research can continue as well as 1000 centrifuges can continue spinning.

    It takes a lot of cynicism to pull off this kind of diplomatic lie, as well as complete confidence that the press won't make a big deal about it. But in the end, the administration is either going to have to cave in to the Iranian interpretation of the agreement, or walk away from negotiations.

    Which do you think more likley?

    1. I think it most likely they've already caved and the Iranians already know it.

  6. Iran, the Nuclear Deal and ‘The Gathering Storm' by Winston Churchill
    April 10, 2015 by Francis P. Sempa

    >>>When the Nazis came to power they continued this subterfuge until Hitler felt confident enough in German strength and Western timidity to openly violate key provisions of the treaty. All the while, Churchill in speech after speech in the House of Commons revealed grave facts about German rearmament that British leaders and most of the world chose to ignore.

    Today, the Western powers, led by the United States, are pinning their hopes for peace on an arms control deal with Iran, a regime every bit as aggressive and evil as Hitler’s. Hitler’s racial ideology led him to pursue policies—the extermination of the Jews and the murder or enslavement of Slavic peoples—that were inexplicable to Western minds despite the fact that Hitler had announced his plans in Mein Kampf. The Iranian Mullahs have likewise been open about their goals of destroying the Jewish state, converting or killing infidels, and establishing a worldwide caliphate based on a religious-political ideology that is also seemingly inexplicable to Western minds. Arms control did not work with Hitler and it will not work with Iran.

    But the arms control delusion persists. It is based on, in Churchill’s words, “[d]elight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, [and] genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundations . . .”

    The much-touted Nuclear Deal with Iran is in reality only a “framework” for a deal. The devil will be in the details. But even the Western interpretation of the framework would leave in place the foundations of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and as Churchill noted about the arms control arrangements in the 1920s and 1930s, “[t]he opportunities for concealment, camouflage, and . . . evasion are numerous and varied.”

    Our desire for a deal with Iran—any deal—is of a piece with our pullout from Iraq, lessening influence in Afghanistan, miscalculations in Libya and Yemen, fumbling response to events in Egypt, and our unwillingness to recognize the religious and ideological roots of our enemies in the Middle East. Churchill’s unforgettable description of British leaders in the 1930s rings all too true today: “So they go on in strange paradox . . . resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years . . . for the locusts to eat..........”<<<

    Francis P. Sempa is the author of Geopolitics: From the Cold War to the 21st Century and America’s Global Role: Essays and Reviews on National Security, Geopolitics and War. He is a contributor to Population Decline and the Remaking of Great Power Politics. He has written on historical and foreign policy topics for Strategic Review, The National Interest, The Diplomat, the Claremont Review of Books, Joint Force Quarterly, the University Bookman, the Washington Times and other publications. He is an attorney, an adjunct professor of political science at Wilkes University, and a contributing editor to American Diplomacy.

    1. The analogy isn't perfect. Compared to the Iranians the Nazis were more or less sane in the sense that they could be deterred.

      The Iranian view however is 'to bring it on' - a cataclysm is needed is get the end times - the good times ! - rolling. What better way to do this than to attack the Satans, large and small, the cause of all the suffering in the world.....

    2. The Nazis could be deterred up to the point of feeling they had the upper hand....

  7. Barack Obama has made certain white American males totally, batshit nuts.

    1. Barack Obama has made certain 7/8 ths white American males totally, batshit nuts.


    2. Actually the guy doesn't talk about Napoleon B. Obama at all in the part quoted.

      I do see real similarities between the Nazis and the Iranian mullahs, and I think it's scary.

    3. The Germans, under the NAZI regime built a massive military industrial complex, the Iranians, not at all.
      The primary similarity, busted.

      The NAZI used their military power to expand their territorial claims, the Iranians, not at all.
      Another similarity, busted.

      Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson may see similarities, but he does not articulate them, because they are merely delusions which he has manufactured, in his own mind.

      The ISraeli are still killing, on average, over 13 Palestinian children each and every month of the 21st century.

  8. The world's 8th largest economy got 29% of its electricity from non-large hydro Renewables, yesterday.

    Ca ISO

    1. I'm not sure what a 'non-large hydro Renewable' actually is except logic would tell me it's a small hydro renewable.

      Anyway if they are looking to small dams they would seem to be shit out of luck days, when the farmers can make more money selling water than raising crops.

  9. By the way part of the problem with the cops is that these days they have to deal with people who a few decades ago were in some padded cell someplace. The Supreme Court - IIRC - came up with that ruling concerning being a danger to oneself or others as the only reason to lock a mentally ill person up. They were all let out, to fend mostly for themselves, which they are mostly unable to do.

    The result is there are a lot of whackos out there who may not be an immediate danger to others but can do a great job of faking it.

    The police aren't psychologists or psychiatrists, it's too much to ask.

    At most they can be trained in, call it, social work.

    Which of course gets in the way of their real job of catching bad guys.

    1. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson did not report the real crime of "Rape" to the police.
      Such a report would have over whelmed their ability, he thought.

      Better that he and his just ignore the fact that most rapists are recidivists, and he left the women of his community in a bad way.
      Endangered and at risk. His family moved, rather than fulfill their civic responsibility.

    2. Not assisting in the apprehension of the rapist, the family Peterson left the women of Moscow worse off.
      Their failure, an indication of apathy and lack of civic mindedness.

      Not what 'Real Americans' do, when their communities are threatened.

  10. It's why we have such a problem here with the poster directly above.

    He was part of the padded cell people but now he's out.

    A serious error in judgement was made in his case.

    1. American Thinker Blog
      Terrorist deemed 'not a danger' to the public arrested in suicide bomb plot
      April 12, 2015
      Sting operation snares Islamic State supporter. More..............

      If you are interested you can read this article to see how badly things can go wrong...............

    2. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, should we start posting your quotes ...
      Advocating genocide, in the US, that was no joke.
      Ripping off the bank, another instance where there was no comedic relief.
      Calling Colin Powell names ...
      The dodging of your civic responsibilities, to the nation and your local community.

      You best "Straighten Up and Fly Right", Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

  11. I've been up all night writing letters to people and now I'm going to bed.

    I am so glad Hillary is going to save our Nation.

  12. "Non-large hydro renewables" are all renewable technologies (Solar, Wind, Geothermal, small hydro, etc) except Large Hydro.

  13. There was no justification for this shooting that I can see.

    "Overt racism"?
    I don't see that either.
    Who needs Sharpton when the 'hood has their own version of him.

    As much as these hucksters want to stoke the racism fires, it's not a black and white world.

    1. about the no justification part. I doubt that the cop would have shot a white man in a business suit.

  14. Actually the guy doesn't talk about Napoleon B. Obama at all in the part quoted.

    I do see real similarities between the Nazis and the Iranian mullahs, and I think it’s scary.

    I’m not sure you understand the Nazis and you certainly don’t understand the Iranians. Where are your facts and where are your figures?

    Please do better than just telling us they want to destroy the Jews. Show us where every Iranian attack against Jewish targets was not in retaliation to Israeli attacks against Iran or the murder of Iranians.

    European Jews were massacred by the Nazis who claimed to be Christian. Jews were so interwoven into German society that most could not see the writing on the wall and did little to protect themselves at the beginning because they saw themselves as Germans.

    There is no equivalency with Iran. Your claim of such is a fabrication and a lie. Europe owed reparation to the Jews. It was not an American problem and it was not a Palestinian or Iranian problem. it was not a solution to create a European Zionist fabrication in Arabia.

    That the natives in Palestine would object to the invasion by Europeans is a historic human reaction to an injustice.

  15. US history of coup-making Overshadows Obama’s outreach to Iran, Latin American Left
    By Juan Cole | Apr. 12, 2015 |

    By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) –
    President Obama met with Cuban President Raoul Castro for an hour on Saturday, and the two made progress on plans to restore diplomatic relations. Before the meeting, Obama said,

    “I think that after 50 years of policy that had not changed on the part of the United States, it was my belief that it was time to try something new, that it was important for us to engage more directly with the Cuban government and the Cuban people. And as a consequence, I think we are now in a position to move on a path towards the future, and leave behind some of the circumstances of the past that have made it so difficult, I think, for our countries to communicate.

    Already we’ve seen majorities of the American people and the Cuban people respond positively to this change. And I truly believe that as more exchanges take place, more commerce and interactions resume between the United States and Cuba, that the deep connections between the Cuban people and the American people will reflect itself in a more positive and constructive relationship between our governments.”

    He went on to promise his neighbors that the days in which the US felt it could meddle with impunity in their affairs were over.
    It is the first time that Cuba attended the 21-year-old Summit of the Americas, which was meeting for the seventh time. Castro gave a long speech that covered decades of grievances against the United States, but then was contrite and apologized, saying that he was speaking of actions of previous presidents, but that Obama is different and is “an honest man.”

    US reporting on Castro’s speech tended to dismiss it as an instance of a Latin leader getting carried away with himself. But the US did in fact try to assassinate Fidel Castro and backed an invasion of the country aimed at overthrowing the government. It is often forgotten that these actions were taken not because Cuba committed an act of war against the USA but because Washington disliked the system of government that Havana adopted.

    Obama said after the meeting,
    ““My message here is that the Cold War is over… I think we have to be very clear. Cuba is not a threat to the United States. . . We are not in the business of regime change. We are in the business of making sure that the Cuban people have freedom and the ability to participate and shape their own destiny and their own lives, and supporting civil society.”

    Obama had to promise not to engage in any further attempts at a coup in Cuba because the USA has been in the coup business for a very long time, as part of the way it has run its empire. Some observers count 51 US military or covert interventions in Latin America since 1890. Quite apart from the Cold War covert ops, the US intervened militarily in Cuba no less than four times in the late 19th and first third of the twentieth century.

    Then, Obama also had a sidebar meeting with President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, in which he apparently tried to calm him down by promising that Washington was not trying to get up a coup against him or overthrow his government, and did not see him as a threat.
    Maduro suspects the US conspired with right wing forces in an attempted coup against his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, in 2002. And he fears that when Obama on March 9 of this year designated Caracas a threat to American security and imposed sanctions against seven Venezuelan officials, it was a prelude to another such covert op. Hence Obama’s attempt to mollify him– though Obama insisted on maintaining the sanctions, since he said those were against human rights violators. His March 9 executive order has been criticized by most other Latin American countries, including Brazil, which is often critical of Venezuela and has tended diplomatically to be closer to the US than the left-leaning ALBA nations.

    1. In short, Obama’s diplomacy at the Summit of the Americas in part consisted of going around promising not to overthrow his fellow leaders, which would be faintly ridiculous if Washington hadn’t in fact intervened so much in neighbors’ affairs.

      The Obama moment in Latin America most resembles president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy” during the Great Depression and WW II, when FDR similarly ceased trying to impose the US will on countries it its south. (Unfortunately in the Cold War period, the interventions were revived).

    2. It is worth pointing out that one of the reasons Obama has difficulty in his negotiations with Iran is that its leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, distrusts Washington because of its long history of intervention in Iran.

      The US along with its WWII allies invaded and occupied Iran in the 1940s; the allies overthrew the ruler, Reza Shah Pahlevi in 1941. The in 1953 the CIA conducted a coup against popular Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh because he led the nationalization of Iranian oil. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the US allied with Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who had invaded Iran in a wanton act of naked aggression in 1980. When Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian troops, the US ran interference for Baghdad at the UN Security Council, ensuring that Baathist Iraq was not sanctioned for its war crimes against Iran.
      So maybe Obama needs a sidebar with Khamenei to reassure him that Washington is not trying to overthrow him, either.

    3. I think that Khamenei would point out the simple fact that, maybe, yes, Obama isn't out to overthrow him, but many Americans are.

  16. Every four years, Republican primary voters are treated to the predictable and pathetic spectacle of GOP presidential candidates claiming to be Ronald Reagan's heir. Left unmentioned is that Reagan's actual record as an abortion rights-signing, immigration amnesty-backing, tax-increasing and Earned Income Tax Credit-supporting Republican who tripled the national debt would make The Gipper about as welcome in today's GOP as a bout of chlamydia.

    But in the wake of the Iran nuclear agreement announced last week, the 2016 GOP White House hopefuls are climbing on top of each other to proclaim themselves the latest vessel for Reagan's ghost. For example, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who previously pledged to rip up on "Day One" the deal the U.S. negotiated with its closest allies, explained this week that "the best president in my lifetime when it comes to foreign affairs was a guy who was governor of California." That's why, Walker declared, "a lot of people agree ... with my sentiment on Iran." Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who in years past claimed that Iran did not represent a threat to the United States, summed up his approach to curbing Tehran's nuclear program this way:

    "I believe in applying Reagan's approach to foreign policy to the Iran issue."
    If so, Paul and his GOP rivals might want to rethink that talking point, and not just because Reagan at Reykjavik had offered to dismantle the entire American nuclear arsenal and denounced the Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. After all, while President Obama is not about to "give the Iranians nuclear weapons," President Ronald Reagan sent the mullahs in Tehran a cake, a Bible and U.S. weapons. And even before the Iran-Contra scandal that nearly brought down his presidency, Reagan was humiliated by Iran's Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon and its ally in Syria just prior to retreating in disgrace.
    But before he earned the title as the U.S. president who actually negotiated with terrorists, Ronald Reagan's intervention in the Lebanese civil war was a disaster both for American policy in the Middle East and the U.S. armed services sent to implement it. And when Reagan wasn't trying to buy the release of American hostages from Iranian-backed terrorists beginning in 1986, he happily accepted the unlikely help of others in freeing U.S. captives from the Assad regime in Syria.

    Continue reading about Reagan's disastrous encounters with Iran, below.

    1. In October 1983, Hezbollah terrorists detonated truck bombs in the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 Americans. As Foreign Policy noted about "Ronald Reagan's Benghazi":

      Reagan never retaliated against Hezbollah or their Iranian and Syrian sponsors responsible for the bombings, a position widely endorsed by senior military officials.
      Ultimately, Reagan cut and ran in February 1984. But on December 4, 1983, President Reagan ordered carrier-based jets to strike targets in Lebanon after reconnaissance aircraft protecting U.S. peacekeeping forces there were fired on. The raid was a disaster. Syrian anti-aircraft batteries downed two jets, killing one pilot and capturing another.

    2. For Reagan and the U.S. military, it was a case of lessons unlearned. During its June 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Israel launched a devastating series of attacks on Syrian surface-to-air missile (SAM) positions in the Bekaa Valley. When the Syrian Air Force dispatched jets to protect the SAM sites, Israel downed 87 MIGs with no losses of its own. But a year and a half later, American forces weren't so fortunate. On December 4, 1983, President Reagan ordered carrier-based bombers to attack anti-aircraft sites that had fired on reconnaissance planes protecting the U.S. peacekeeping force in Beirut. The result, as the New York Times recalled in 1989, was a disaster:

      The only time the United States sent its bombers over Lebanon, as President Bush was reportedly prepared to do again this week, the mission ended in a fiasco, with two planes shot down and one damaged, one pilot killed and one crewman captured, and little to show for the effort.
      The memory of that December 1983 raid, which came only six weeks after 241 American servicemen were killed in the bombing of their barracks in Beirut, remains vivid among senior officers in the Pentagon as they await the outcome of diplomatic efforts to end the current hostage crisis.
      In The Reagan Diaries, the Gipper explained how he came to order the ill-fated raid:

      That evening received a call from McFarlane that the Syrians had launched an anti-aircraft & ground to air missile against our unarmed reconnaissance planes during one of their routine sweeps of Beirut. Permission was needed from me for a return strike against the guilty batteries. I'd already received a call on this from Cap in Paris. I gave the order. Sunday morning got a call--we had taken out a communications center, some batteries & an ammo dump. Two of our planes (24) had been shot down. One pilot parachuted and had been recovered. The other 2 is the 2nd plane parachuted in hostile zone--we've heard one was machine-gunned but we've also hard both are prisoners. We're trying to get a confirmation & will open negotiations for their return.

    3. That same night, Reagan wrote, he attended a Hanukkah ceremony and went to a reception honoring Frank Sinatra, Jimmy Stewart, Elia Kazan, Katherine Dunham, and Virgil Thompson at the JFK Center for the Performing Arts. "A posse of our Hollywood friends will be at the W.H. for the reception," President Reagan noted, adding later, "It turned out to be a wonderful evening & a great show."
      Just not for the armed forces of the United States.

      For his part, President Reagan complained bitterly the day after his catastrophe in the Bekaa Valley:

      "Our press & TV are hostile to the point of being pro-Syrian."
      As it turned out, negotiations did lead to the return of the captured American airman. But they weren't directed by President Reagan or anyone in his administration. Instead, the surviving U.S. pilot returned home only after the unsanctioned intervention of the Rev. Jesse Jackson. On January 4, 1984, Reagan had to admit, "You can't quarrel with success." As the AP reported that day:

      The United States, said Reagan, was ready to approach the problems of the Middle East "with a renewed spirit."
      Reagan also applauded Democratic rival Jesse Jackson for the personal unofficial mission which gained the release of Navy Lt. Robert O. Goodman, Jr...To Jackson, the president said "it is a great day here in Washington. All Americans thank you. There have been a lot of prayers here in Washington. I have been praying for you. I couldn't be happier."

    4. To be sure, Reagan was happier than he would be two years later, when his efforts to secure the release of American hostages held by Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon blew up in his face in the Iran-Contra scandal.
      Iran-Contra, as you'll recall, almost laid waste to the Reagan presidency. Desperate to free U.S. hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon, President Reagan provided weapons Tehran badly needed in its long war with Saddam Hussein (who, of course, was backed by the United States). In a clumsy and illegal attempt to skirt U.S. law, the proceeds of those sales were then funneled to the Contras fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. As the New York Times recalled, Reagan's fiasco started with an emissary bearing gifts from the Gipper himself:

      A retired Central Intelligence Agency official has confirmed to the Senate Intelligence Committee that on the secret mission to Teheran last May, Robert C. McFarlane and his party carried a Bible with a handwritten verse from President Reagan for Iranian leaders.
      According to a person who has read the committee's draft report, the retired C.I.A. official, George W. Cave, an Iran expert who was part of the mission, said the group had 10 falsified passports, believed to be Irish, and a key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated ''opening'' to Iran.
      As his diaries published in 2005 show, President Ronald Reagan was under no illusions about either the illegality of the scheme or that it constituted anything other than a swap of arms for hostages. On Thursday, December 5, 1985, Reagan wrote in his diary:

      N.S.C. briefing--probably Bud's last. Subject was our undercover effort to free our 5 hostages held by terrorists in Lebanon. It is a complex undertaking with only a few of us in on it. I won't even write in the diary what we're up to.

    5. Nevertheless, just two days later the Gipper wrote about that very topic. On Saturday, December 7, Reagan noted in his diary:

      Day opened with "Rex" (our new dog) on our bed. I then had a meeting with Don R., Cap W. and Bud M., John P., Geo. Schultz and Mahan of C.I.A. This had to do with the complex plan which could return our 5 hostages & help some officials in Iran who want to turn that country from its present course & on to a better relationship with us. It calls for Israel selling some weapons to Iran. As they are delivered in installments by air our hostages will be released. The weapons will go to the moderate leaders in the army who are essential if there is to be a change to a more stable govt. We then sell Israel replacements for the delivered weapons. None of this is a gift--the Iranians pay cash for the weapons--so does Israel.
      George S. Cap and Don are opposed--Cong. has imposed a law that we can't sell Iran weapons or sell any other country weapons for resale to Iran. Geo. also thinks this violates our policy of not paying off terrorists. I claim the weapons are for those who want to change the govt of Iran & no ransom is being pd. for the hostages. No direct sale would be made by us to Iran but we would be replacing the weapons sold by Israel.
      In case there was any doubt that Ronald Reagan blessed the delivery of hundreds of advanced anti-tank weapons to Tehran, the president himself removed it with his January 17, 1986, diary entry, "I agreed to sell TOWs to Iran."
      The rest, as they say, is history. Or, more accurately, rewritten history. As President Reagan told the American people in a nationally televised address on March 4, 1987:

      "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
      Of course, the pathetic saga didn't end there. Then . . . . . .

      strange hero

  17. >>>There is no equivalency with Iran. Your claim of such is a fabrication and a lie.<<<

    Jeez wheez Deuce, that's quite extreme.

    I didn't say there was an equivalency with Iran.

    What I said was:

    "I do see real similarities between the Nazis and the Iranian mullahs, and I think it’s scary."

    If you don't, that's between you and your eyes.

    1. Not between my eyes, between your sloppy use of the meanings of words, such as your word, "similarities".

      "I do see real similarities between the Nazis and the Iranian mullahs, and I think it’s scary."

      synonyms: resemblance, likeness, sameness, similitude, comparability, correspondence, parallel, equivalence, homogeneity, indistinguishability, uniformity; archaicsemblance

    2. You are losing the argument.

      And this:

      >>>That the natives in Palestine would object to the invasion by Europeans is a historic human reaction to an injustice.<<<

      is nitwittery too.

      We must have talked this a hundred times here.

      Again, the real situation is much more complex. The place was a destitute backwater before Jews started buying land and settling. Many 'Palestinians' began coming in from the desert for the newly created jobs. Some were kicked out of other countries. There were population exchanges after the wars. The native Christian and Jewish people of the area were glad to see the new arrivals. There were good numbers of such folks. This all occurred over many decades beginning in the late 1800's.

      An "invasion" ? And you talk of the misuse of words ?

      Moving along to local news: Hillary's professional campaign gets moving -

      Horrible typo in Hillary announcement...
      'Fought children and families all her career'.........Drudge

      Heh :)

      She's certainly fought with Bubba all her life, at least on those rare occasions when they are under the same roof together.

    3. Bob,

      What similarities do you see between Nazis and Iranians? Please give us a concise short list!

    4. 1) A Supreme Leader
      2) An insane ideology of the world domination sort
      3) Repression of minorities, gays etc
      4) Total state control
      5) A particular hatred of those of Jewish background or outlook
      6) Aggression
      7) A striking and odd difference is the Nazis treated their own women - no one else's - but their own women better than the Iranians do theirs. I can't recall any blue eyed blond Aryan women being stoned to death by the Nazis for 'adultery'.
      8) An elite military cadre - the SS - the al Quds folk
      9) Control of the press and free speech and books
      10) Torture
      11) The salute
      12) The shouting of slogans
      13) The ability to hoodwink nitwits like you

    5. Whillikkers, even I'm smarter than Ash.

  18. It won't be me, but I bet a good researcher could seine net this blog and come up with a thread put up by the Deuce of the Ago showing in photo and/or video the similarities (I insist !) between the Nazis and the current crop of Iranians, right down to the stiff raised arm salute and the strutting about.

    Seems I recall such an offering some years back.

    Do you recall such an offering Deuce, anyone ?

    I'd love to see it again.

    Now I'm off the topic.

    Too nice a day to argue over much of anything, really.

    The estimate of the grey wolf population in Idaho has been raised yet again and yet again it is way way too low.

    Never believe anything the wild life biologists tell you.

    Even the helicopter gunships are not working.

    Poison, the workable method of regaining control of the Fiasco, is still to un-PC

  19. 27 March 2014
    Ten of the world’s most beautiful bookshops
    By Fiona Macdonald


    Who said a bookshop can't be beautiful ?


  20. I believe I just heard on Fox News, if I heard right, that the officer involved here has been charged with murder.

    If so, it looks to be a well enough deserved charge.

    Probably be found guilty too.

    Cheers !

    Have a great day, slackers

    Work is the curse of the drinking class.............