The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Bernies Sanders"
 All Comments / On "Bernies Sanders"
    Everyone sees what they want to see in the candidates for president. A recent survey on their foreign policies rated them with letter grades, but “foreign policy” is itself a bit of an elusive concept and the results tended to favor what the authors considered to be important. In my opinion the issue is actually...
  • @annamaria
    "...killing the families of terrorists is a good policy."
    What if the most prolific mass murderers occupy high level positions in your government or enjoy a very comfortable retirement?
    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is known for its sponsorship of terrorists (including those involved in 9/11), but the Kingdom is still a bosom buddy of the US. Turkey and Israel have been making sweet deals with ISIS and thus supporting the head-choppers via oil-trading - and the US looked away.
    The European Union has become flooded with both the desperate refugees from the US-initiated illegal war (Iraq) and regime changes (Libya & Syria) and with "freedom fighters" (some of them trained by the US/EU) that could strike Europe anytime and anywhere (see Brussels).
    What about using the US citizens' treasury & limb for realizing the Oded Yinon Plan, namely for balkanizing the Middle East to ensure Israel's expansion and the US/EU grab of oil reserves there? Iran has not attacked any country in more than 200 years. It is also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why then the loudest accuser of Iran has been so reluctant to sign the same treaty? And how do you like Israel's minister of justice' incitement of Israeli citizens to kill Palestinian babies so that they would not become terrorists? - Like Irgun and other "freedom fighters" that were at the foundation of the modern state of Israel.
    The State Dept has orchestrated the "most blatant coup d'etat" in Kiev, which brought to power not only the hand-picked oligarchs but the well-known neo-Nazi. The neo-Nazi-infested battalion Azov (actually, the terrorist battalion Azov) was involved in burning the dozens of civilians alive in Odessa. - Nobody was punished. Moreover, the US have sent "advisors" and weaponry to Ukraine.

    It never ceases to amaze me how you neoconferates think your anti war by regurgitate
    ING the pro warmongering stance of Russia, Assad, Iran etc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AmericaFirstNow
    Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/10/would-a-clinton-win-mean-more-wars/
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine:


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    geokat,
    I received no emails from you. Try again.

    CP – I sent your email through the Liberty from the Lobby site on FB. Let’s stop using the unz site to communicate this type of stuff, pls?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    Any luck, CP?

    geokat,
    I received no emails from you. Try again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    CP - I sent your email through the Liberty from the Lobby site on FB. Let's stop using the unz site to communicate this type of stuff, pls?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    thank you.

    Are you aware of the Democracy Spring movement?

    http://www.democracyspring.org

    SIT IN WITH THOUSANDS. SAVE DEMOCRACY FOR MILLIONS.
    MARCH: APRIL 2-11. SIT-INS: APRIL 11-18.

    It’s time to take mass nonviolent action on a historic scale to save our democracy. This April, in Washington, D.C., we will demand a Congress that will take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in our politics and ensure free and fair elections in which every American has an equal voice.

    The campaign will begin on April 2nd with a march from the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. where thousands will gather to reclaim the US Capitol in a powerful, peaceful, and massive sit-in that no one can ignore. Over 3,000 people have already pledged to risk arrest between April 11th-18th in what will be one of the largest civil disobedience actions in a generation. Together we can open the door to reforms previously considered impossible and reclaim our democracy. Join us!
     
    MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TRAININGS FOR SIT-IN DAY ONE - MONDAY 4/11:

    Sunday Night [Apr 10] 6:30-9:30 PM
    Impact Hub DC, 419 7th St NW, Washington, DC 20004, 3rd Floor

    Monday Morning 9:00-11:00 AM
    Sanctuary, Lutheran Church of the Reformation, 212 East Capitol St NE, Washington, DC 20003
    Trainings will continue twice a day throughout the week according to this schedule
     

    Democracy Spring Protest…to oppose the influence of big donors in elections.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?407519-5/washington-journal-kai-newkirk-democracy-spring-protest

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    It's real - just like me.

    Any luck, CP?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    geokat,
    I received no emails from you. Try again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    thank you.

    Are you aware of the Democracy Spring movement?

    http://www.democracyspring.org

    SIT IN WITH THOUSANDS. SAVE DEMOCRACY FOR MILLIONS.
    MARCH: APRIL 2-11. SIT-INS: APRIL 11-18.

    It’s time to take mass nonviolent action on a historic scale to save our democracy. This April, in Washington, D.C., we will demand a Congress that will take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in our politics and ensure free and fair elections in which every American has an equal voice.

    The campaign will begin on April 2nd with a march from the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. where thousands will gather to reclaim the US Capitol in a powerful, peaceful, and massive sit-in that no one can ignore. Over 3,000 people have already pledged to risk arrest between April 11th-18th in what will be one of the largest civil disobedience actions in a generation. Together we can open the door to reforms previously considered impossible and reclaim our democracy. Join us!
     
    MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TRAININGS FOR SIT-IN DAY ONE - MONDAY 4/11:

    Sunday Night [Apr 10] 6:30-9:30 PM
    Impact Hub DC, 419 7th St NW, Washington, DC 20004, 3rd Floor

    Monday Morning 9:00-11:00 AM
    Sanctuary, Lutheran Church of the Reformation, 212 East Capitol St NE, Washington, DC 20003
    Trainings will continue twice a day throughout the week according to this schedule
     

    Democracy Spring is a response to the “Citizens United” decision. They talk about billionaires and corporations, but to my knowledge say nothing about agents of foreign governments.

    If you show up with a sign that says -
    GET ISRAELI MONEY OUT OF U.S. POLITICS
    MAKE AIPAC REGISTER AS AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT -

    make sure you get in front of a camera(s) because, as you know, if the press doesn’t cover it, you weren’t really there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    Solonto,
    I appreciate your input on what actually led up to the 1st Gulf War. I would add that anyone who's tempted to think the Jew-run regime in Washington does anything to benefit the people of any country other than Israel, are sadly mistaken. They don't give a damn about the American people, let alone those of Kuwait.

    thank you.

    Are you aware of the Democracy Spring movement?

    http://www.democracyspring.org

    SIT IN WITH THOUSANDS. SAVE DEMOCRACY FOR MILLIONS.
    MARCH: APRIL 2-11. SIT-INS: APRIL 11-18.

    It’s time to take mass nonviolent action on a historic scale to save our democracy. This April, in Washington, D.C., we will demand a Congress that will take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in our politics and ensure free and fair elections in which every American has an equal voice.

    The campaign will begin on April 2nd with a march from the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. where thousands will gather to reclaim the US Capitol in a powerful, peaceful, and massive sit-in that no one can ignore. Over 3,000 people have already pledged to risk arrest between April 11th-18th in what will be one of the largest civil disobedience actions in a generation. Together we can open the door to reforms previously considered impossible and reclaim our democracy. Join us!

    MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TRAININGS FOR SIT-IN DAY ONE – MONDAY 4/11:

    Sunday Night [Apr 10] 6:30-9:30 PM
    Impact Hub DC, 419 7th St NW, Washington, DC 20004, 3rd Floor

    Monday Morning 9:00-11:00 AM
    Sanctuary, Lutheran Church of the Reformation, 212 East Capitol St NE, Washington, DC 20003
    Trainings will continue twice a day throughout the week according to this schedule

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Democracy Spring is a response to the "Citizens United" decision. They talk about billionaires and corporations, but to my knowledge say nothing about agents of foreign governments.

    If you show up with a sign that says -
    GET ISRAELI MONEY OUT OF U.S. POLITICS
    MAKE AIPAC REGISTER AS AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT -

    make sure you get in front of a camera(s) because, as you know, if the press doesn't cover it, you weren't really there.
    , @RobinG
    Democracy Spring Protest...to oppose the influence of big donors in elections.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?407519-5/washington-journal-kai-newkirk-democracy-spring-protest
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @alexander
    Hi S2C,


    I know about the argument you are making, but I don't quite buy it.


    I don't think Bush I was as much of a tool of "Zionist aggression" as you claim.

    Had the world ALLOWED Saddams' invasion and annexation of Kuwait, in 1990, to pass ,unattended , it would have un-wound all the most meaningful , potent reforms of post WWII.

    Many argue that Bush I may have lost his second term bid because he sought to impose the same principle, on Israel, as he did with Iraq, and withhold all aid to Israel, if it continued building settlements in Palestine.

    I think that may be true.

    If its not OK for Saddam to do it, in Kuwait, why is acceptable for our ally, Israel, to do it in the West bank, in Palestine ?


    Its not.

    I don't really think the arguments you pose, in your "quotations" hold much weight.

    Bush I made it clear that removing Saddam from Kuwait and degrading his military capability to do so in the future ,was the mission.....consistent with the U.N. resolutions..AND consistent with the law..........NOT 'regime change".

    Sorry S2C, but the facts are right in this case.

    There was no "debate" among the world powers, whether Saddams' invasion of Kuwait, never really happened, that it was all just fabricated "Zionist Fraud"...suggesting he did., when he really didn't !

    Sorry , S2C, he really DID invade Kuwait, no two ways about it.

    You can try to slice that cheesecake any way you want...but its still cheese in the middle.

    Iraq's invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait really did occur.

    Which is a SUPREME international crime.

    And its right, not to let it stand.

    This is good law, and good use of our military.

    On the other hand...

    The Bush II, 2003 invasion of Iraq was based entirely on the "fraudulent claim" he and his WMD 's were an imminent, impending threat to our Nation.

    This was a big fat lie.....

    so was the bogus claim it was "Saddams anthrax" in Senator Leahy's office.

    These were "concocted pretexts"......Phony baloney !...to sell the American people on the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    (which was not only a supreme international crime but turned out to be" supremely expensive" to boot.)

    They are NOT the same thing , S2C, and any who suggest they are, are frauds too.

    You are no exception.

    Learn the difference.

    Sorry , S2C, he really DID invade Kuwait, no two ways about it.

    No one said Saddam did not invade Kuwait, Alexander.

    There are three critical elements in the argument:
    1. The Arabs were eager to settle the conflict nonviolently; Saddam was involved in these negotiations (Not mentioned in my earlier comment, but Gorbachev was so persistent and intense in pressuring Bush to allow Arabs to settle the situation themselves that Bush exploded and yelled at Gorbachev on more than one occasion. )

    2. As the extended Eagleburger quote clearly spells out, the Bush team’s intentions in invading Iraq had nearly nothing to do with resolving the “supreme international crime” of Saddam having invaded Kuwait. Nada. Read the Eagelburger quote again, Alexander. Eagleburger was there, he was part of the decision-making team (also not said, but Brent Scowcroft mirrored and affirmed Eagelburger’s position: the GHW Bush administration did NOT invade Iraq out of motives of correcting the “international crime”; they did so to exert US hegemony.

    3. A goal of the US invasion was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. That is not a permissible action; it is considered an aggression.

    While your leveling charges of “fraud,” Alexander, riddle me this:

    a. Was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 a legitimate action or an “international crime . . . of aggression”?

    b. What did the ‘international community’ and the Superpower, Enforcer of all that is good and noble do about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon?

    re this little bit of drivel:

    They are NOT the same thing , S2C, and any who suggest they are, are frauds too.
    You are no exception.
    Learn the difference.

    I tried very hard to be cool and objective and presented arguments and words from the horse’s mouth, with references.
    Nothing that you wrote was anything other than mental miasma.
    Your closing three lines reflected jackassitude.
    Learn the difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    Several facts are omitted from your analysis, Alexander, that if duly considered would, indeed, support the proposition that "it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior."

    First: It's possible to locate the inception of this "large continuum," at least wrt to the Middle East, in a conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in July 1979. I suggest that this conference laid the blueprint for the global war on terror. George H. W. Bush was among the key speakers at that conference. see International Terrorism: Challenge and Response


    2. Saddam was our guy, and it was doing the US's dirty work that got Iraq into the situation it was in re Kuwait; namely, US egged Iraq into waging war against Iran 1980 - 1988. Iraq's expenditures in that war drained Iraq's economy. When Saddam asked the Arab states -- who had also cheered Iraq in warring against Iran but had not helped finance it -- to help Iraq dig out of its economic hole, Kuwait responded by refusing Saddam's request and lowering oil prices. Oil was Iraq's sole source of revenue, but Kuwait had massive investments in Western markets to sustain its economy. see Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, by Pierre Salinger

    3. Your assertion,
    "I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991."
    is incorrect; that is, it is not "REAL history", it is incomplete history.
    A negotiated settlement, to which Saddam was willing to agree, was in the works. The Bush I regime would not permit it.

    see: King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East


    "the U.S. was doing Israel's "dirty work" in opposing Saddam Hussein in 1990 and could have negotiated an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait without resorting to war." [nb. recall also that Israel bombed Osirick in 1983, which induced Saddam to ramp up his pursuit of nuclear weapons]
     
    and Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War
    by Jeffrey Engel (Editor)

    Engel, an historian, is director of the Bush Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist Univ.

    4. Your analysis claims that "In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions."
    In a discussion of his book, Engel focused on the decision-making process leading up to Bush 41's invasion of Iraq, and also of the reasoning behind not pursuing Saddam into Baghdad. Engel quoted Lawrence Eagleburger, a part of Bush I's team, as to why Bush took the decision to invade Iraq:


    QUOTE: We should be frank about what moved them to act.
    It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.
    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. . . .

    This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson." END QUOTE.
     

    Engel concluded,

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion . . .a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .
    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence." End quote.
     
    In other words, Bush's goal in invading Iraq in 1991 was to establish USA (and zionist) hegemony, a vision that matches closely the vision of neoconservatives, with whom we must assume Bush I was closely aligned, given the REAL historical fact of the first point, above, with this caveat: by linking his actions against Iraq in 1991 with World War II, Bush expands the continuum to reveal that just as a US invasion of Iraq in 1991 (as well as 2003) was an unnecessary war but was joined to establish American-zionist hegemony, so too was World War II an unnecessary war, fought to establish American-zionist hegemony.

    5. You wrote:


    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.
     
    Here's what Engel had to say about that decision:

    a. Bush 41 was "constrained by the Arab-Israeli dynamic:" if the US coalition -- of which Israel was NOT a part -- stayed in the region too long, Israel might seek to retaliate against Iraq. As well, Engel echoed your sentiment:


    Harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism.
     
    I have a hard time understanding the distinction between Bush's New World Order vision and neocolonialism, in light of the REAL history that US was imposing itself and its will against the wishes of the indigenous Arabs.

    But Engel's third point is extremely important. Engel said:


    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.
    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.
    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again.
     
    That is,
    a. Bush's team was "99% certain" that the Iraqi people and army would overthrow their own leader.
    b. They believe to this day that "Saddam got lucky."
    c. They would -- and have -- made the same bet again.

    This expectation and bet is against all historic odds!

    The US and British bombed the hell out of Germany on the expectation that destroying the morale of German civilians would lead to the capitulation of the German government, but it did not.

    USA and others imposed sanctions that starved to death a million Iraqis -- including 500,000 children, but sanctions did not bring about the capitulation of Saddam.

    US Congress imposed, and continues to impose, sanctions on Iran in the expectation that sanctions will cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government. California congressman Ed Royce enunciated this exact scheme in 2007. So far, it has not worked.

    REAL history has shown that Sanctions do. not. work.

    The people of a nation tend to rally around their leadership when it is under threat rather than ally with an invading force that seeks to overthrow their state.

    Solonto,
    I appreciate your input on what actually led up to the 1st Gulf War. I would add that anyone who’s tempted to think the Jew-run regime in Washington does anything to benefit the people of any country other than Israel, are sadly mistaken. They don’t give a damn about the American people, let alone those of Kuwait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    thank you.

    Are you aware of the Democracy Spring movement?

    http://www.democracyspring.org

    SIT IN WITH THOUSANDS. SAVE DEMOCRACY FOR MILLIONS.
    MARCH: APRIL 2-11. SIT-INS: APRIL 11-18.

    It’s time to take mass nonviolent action on a historic scale to save our democracy. This April, in Washington, D.C., we will demand a Congress that will take immediate action to end the corruption of big money in our politics and ensure free and fair elections in which every American has an equal voice.

    The campaign will begin on April 2nd with a march from the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. where thousands will gather to reclaim the US Capitol in a powerful, peaceful, and massive sit-in that no one can ignore. Over 3,000 people have already pledged to risk arrest between April 11th-18th in what will be one of the largest civil disobedience actions in a generation. Together we can open the door to reforms previously considered impossible and reclaim our democracy. Join us!
     
    MASS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE TRAININGS FOR SIT-IN DAY ONE - MONDAY 4/11:

    Sunday Night [Apr 10] 6:30-9:30 PM
    Impact Hub DC, 419 7th St NW, Washington, DC 20004, 3rd Floor

    Monday Morning 9:00-11:00 AM
    Sanctuary, Lutheran Church of the Reformation, 212 East Capitol St NE, Washington, DC 20003
    Trainings will continue twice a day throughout the week according to this schedule
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    Several facts are omitted from your analysis, Alexander, that if duly considered would, indeed, support the proposition that "it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior."

    First: It's possible to locate the inception of this "large continuum," at least wrt to the Middle East, in a conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in July 1979. I suggest that this conference laid the blueprint for the global war on terror. George H. W. Bush was among the key speakers at that conference. see International Terrorism: Challenge and Response


    2. Saddam was our guy, and it was doing the US's dirty work that got Iraq into the situation it was in re Kuwait; namely, US egged Iraq into waging war against Iran 1980 - 1988. Iraq's expenditures in that war drained Iraq's economy. When Saddam asked the Arab states -- who had also cheered Iraq in warring against Iran but had not helped finance it -- to help Iraq dig out of its economic hole, Kuwait responded by refusing Saddam's request and lowering oil prices. Oil was Iraq's sole source of revenue, but Kuwait had massive investments in Western markets to sustain its economy. see Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, by Pierre Salinger

    3. Your assertion,
    "I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991."
    is incorrect; that is, it is not "REAL history", it is incomplete history.
    A negotiated settlement, to which Saddam was willing to agree, was in the works. The Bush I regime would not permit it.

    see: King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East


    "the U.S. was doing Israel's "dirty work" in opposing Saddam Hussein in 1990 and could have negotiated an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait without resorting to war." [nb. recall also that Israel bombed Osirick in 1983, which induced Saddam to ramp up his pursuit of nuclear weapons]
     
    and Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War
    by Jeffrey Engel (Editor)

    Engel, an historian, is director of the Bush Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist Univ.

    4. Your analysis claims that "In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions."
    In a discussion of his book, Engel focused on the decision-making process leading up to Bush 41's invasion of Iraq, and also of the reasoning behind not pursuing Saddam into Baghdad. Engel quoted Lawrence Eagleburger, a part of Bush I's team, as to why Bush took the decision to invade Iraq:


    QUOTE: We should be frank about what moved them to act.
    It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.
    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. . . .

    This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson." END QUOTE.
     

    Engel concluded,

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion . . .a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .
    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence." End quote.
     
    In other words, Bush's goal in invading Iraq in 1991 was to establish USA (and zionist) hegemony, a vision that matches closely the vision of neoconservatives, with whom we must assume Bush I was closely aligned, given the REAL historical fact of the first point, above, with this caveat: by linking his actions against Iraq in 1991 with World War II, Bush expands the continuum to reveal that just as a US invasion of Iraq in 1991 (as well as 2003) was an unnecessary war but was joined to establish American-zionist hegemony, so too was World War II an unnecessary war, fought to establish American-zionist hegemony.

    5. You wrote:


    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.
     
    Here's what Engel had to say about that decision:

    a. Bush 41 was "constrained by the Arab-Israeli dynamic:" if the US coalition -- of which Israel was NOT a part -- stayed in the region too long, Israel might seek to retaliate against Iraq. As well, Engel echoed your sentiment:


    Harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism.
     
    I have a hard time understanding the distinction between Bush's New World Order vision and neocolonialism, in light of the REAL history that US was imposing itself and its will against the wishes of the indigenous Arabs.

    But Engel's third point is extremely important. Engel said:


    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.
    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.
    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again.
     
    That is,
    a. Bush's team was "99% certain" that the Iraqi people and army would overthrow their own leader.
    b. They believe to this day that "Saddam got lucky."
    c. They would -- and have -- made the same bet again.

    This expectation and bet is against all historic odds!

    The US and British bombed the hell out of Germany on the expectation that destroying the morale of German civilians would lead to the capitulation of the German government, but it did not.

    USA and others imposed sanctions that starved to death a million Iraqis -- including 500,000 children, but sanctions did not bring about the capitulation of Saddam.

    US Congress imposed, and continues to impose, sanctions on Iran in the expectation that sanctions will cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government. California congressman Ed Royce enunciated this exact scheme in 2007. So far, it has not worked.

    REAL history has shown that Sanctions do. not. work.

    The people of a nation tend to rally around their leadership when it is under threat rather than ally with an invading force that seeks to overthrow their state.

    Hi S2C,

    I know about the argument you are making, but I don’t quite buy it.

    I don’t think Bush I was as much of a tool of “Zionist aggression” as you claim.

    Had the world ALLOWED Saddams’ invasion and annexation of Kuwait, in 1990, to pass ,unattended , it would have un-wound all the most meaningful , potent reforms of post WWII.

    Many argue that Bush I may have lost his second term bid because he sought to impose the same principle, on Israel, as he did with Iraq, and withhold all aid to Israel, if it continued building settlements in Palestine.

    I think that may be true.

    If its not OK for Saddam to do it, in Kuwait, why is acceptable for our ally, Israel, to do it in the West bank, in Palestine ?

    Its not.

    I don’t really think the arguments you pose, in your “quotations” hold much weight.

    Bush I made it clear that removing Saddam from Kuwait and degrading his military capability to do so in the future ,was the mission…..consistent with the U.N. resolutions..AND consistent with the law……….NOT ‘regime change”.

    Sorry S2C, but the facts are right in this case.

    There was no “debate” among the world powers, whether Saddams’ invasion of Kuwait, never really happened, that it was all just fabricated “Zionist Fraud”…suggesting he did., when he really didn’t !

    Sorry , S2C, he really DID invade Kuwait, no two ways about it.

    You can try to slice that cheesecake any way you want…but its still cheese in the middle.

    Iraq’s invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait really did occur.

    Which is a SUPREME international crime.

    And its right, not to let it stand.

    This is good law, and good use of our military.

    On the other hand…

    The Bush II, 2003 invasion of Iraq was based entirely on the “fraudulent claim” he and his WMD ‘s were an imminent, impending threat to our Nation.

    This was a big fat lie…..

    so was the bogus claim it was “Saddams anthrax” in Senator Leahy’s office.

    These were “concocted pretexts”……Phony baloney !…to sell the American people on the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    (which was not only a supreme international crime but turned out to be” supremely expensive” to boot.)

    They are NOT the same thing , S2C, and any who suggest they are, are frauds too.

    You are no exception.

    Learn the difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Sorry , S2C, he really DID invade Kuwait, no two ways about it.
     
    No one said Saddam did not invade Kuwait, Alexander.

    There are three critical elements in the argument:
    1. The Arabs were eager to settle the conflict nonviolently; Saddam was involved in these negotiations (Not mentioned in my earlier comment, but Gorbachev was so persistent and intense in pressuring Bush to allow Arabs to settle the situation themselves that Bush exploded and yelled at Gorbachev on more than one occasion. )

    2. As the extended Eagleburger quote clearly spells out, the Bush team's intentions in invading Iraq had nearly nothing to do with resolving the "supreme international crime" of Saddam having invaded Kuwait. Nada. Read the Eagelburger quote again, Alexander. Eagleburger was there, he was part of the decision-making team (also not said, but Brent Scowcroft mirrored and affirmed Eagelburger's position: the GHW Bush administration did NOT invade Iraq out of motives of correcting the "international crime"; they did so to exert US hegemony.

    3. A goal of the US invasion was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. That is not a permissible action; it is considered an aggression.

    While your leveling charges of "fraud," Alexander, riddle me this:

    a. Was Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 a legitimate action or an "international crime . . . of aggression"?

    b. What did the 'international community' and the Superpower, Enforcer of all that is good and noble do about Israel's invasion of Lebanon?

    re this little bit of drivel:

    They are NOT the same thing , S2C, and any who suggest they are, are frauds too.
    You are no exception.
    Learn the difference.
     
    I tried very hard to be cool and objective and presented arguments and words from the horse's mouth, with references.
    Nothing that you wrote was anything other than mental miasma.
    Your closing three lines reflected jackassitude.
    Learn the difference.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    Bernie Sanders bobbled foreign policy in that Daily News interview
    Wed, Apr 6
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-bobbled-foreign-policy-1401903242035254.html

    Bernie Sanders doesn’t know whether President Obama’s signature counterterrorism strategy, drone strikes, is the right approach to the problem.

    Fifteen years into a bitter national debate about Guantanamo Bay, he hasn’t thought much about where he would imprison and interrogate a captured terrorist leader.

    He can’t explain his call for Israel to pull back from some settlements on Palestinian land because he doesn’t have “some paper” in front of him.

    He also can’t say why he doesn’t support Palestinians taking action against Israel before the International Criminal Court.

    Those are all takeaways from a New York Daily News interview with Sanders,
     

    Sanders isn’t stupid. He’s weak on implementation because detailing plans would break his coalition with mainstream Democrats and force him to criticize Obama.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @alexander
    Good points, Phil,

    and also to Laurie and Robin.

    I think one can make an argument that Saddam may have been mouse trapped into invading Kuwait in 1990. That is fair enough.

    But lets be clear about this.......he did, in fact, make the choice to invade Kuwait.

    Which is REAL history.....not fraud.

    Like the anthrax scare, eleven years later...which was a true defrauding of the American people.

    There is a difference, and in my book, its a big one.

    I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991.

    As a matter of fact, Ambassador Joe Wilson, the self same individual who pulled back the curtain on the Neocon Niger "yellow cake" forgery in 2002, was also credited with delivering the message to Saddam, personally, in 1991.

    There is a huge difference in my mind between engaging a state that has initiated war of aggression in invaded another, which Iraq did in fact do, in 1990, and the US initiating war of aggression in invading another, which we did, tragically, in 2003.

    In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions.

    In 2003, we BROKE the law, and became the transgressor.

    We became the very "evil" we should all be standing against.

    I kinda disagree with you folks,on the thread that it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior.

    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.

    Which is precisely what happened when we launched OUR illegal invasion ten years later.

    I believe 1991 Operation Desert Storm, has much more in common with Putin's recent incursions in Syria, against ISIS, in terms of initiating a principled and legal response to aggression, than the catastrophic 2003 invasion, which was all Neocon fraud and aggression from the get go.

    Our government has been transformed , by the 9-11 Neocon "coup", into a sinister, malevolent entity.... a tragic and criminal enterprise...that has utter disdain for the truth... and no respect for the rule of law or the justice it is supposed to serve.

    How very sad this is the case...... but it is.

    Several facts are omitted from your analysis, Alexander, that if duly considered would, indeed, support the proposition that “it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior.”

    First: It’s possible to locate the inception of this “large continuum,” at least wrt to the Middle East, in a conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in July 1979. I suggest that this conference laid the blueprint for the global war on terror. George H. W. Bush was among the key speakers at that conference. see International Terrorism: Challenge and Response

    2. Saddam was our guy, and it was doing the US’s dirty work that got Iraq into the situation it was in re Kuwait; namely, US egged Iraq into waging war against Iran 1980 – 1988. Iraq’s expenditures in that war drained Iraq’s economy. When Saddam asked the Arab states — who had also cheered Iraq in warring against Iran but had not helped finance it — to help Iraq dig out of its economic hole, Kuwait responded by refusing Saddam’s request and lowering oil prices. Oil was Iraq’s sole source of revenue, but Kuwait had massive investments in Western markets to sustain its economy. see Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, by Pierre Salinger

    3. Your assertion,
    “I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991.”
    is incorrect; that is, it is not “REAL history”, it is incomplete history.
    A negotiated settlement, to which Saddam was willing to agree, was in the works. The Bush I regime would not permit it.

    see: King’s Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East

    “the U.S. was doing Israel’s “dirty work” in opposing Saddam Hussein in 1990 and could have negotiated an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait without resorting to war.” [nb. recall also that Israel bombed Osirick in 1983, which induced Saddam to ramp up his pursuit of nuclear weapons]

    and Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War
    by Jeffrey Engel (Editor)

    Engel, an historian, is director of the Bush Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist Univ.

    4. Your analysis claims that “In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions.”
    In a discussion of his book, Engel focused on the decision-making process leading up to Bush 41′s invasion of Iraq, and also of the reasoning behind not pursuing Saddam into Baghdad. Engel quoted Lawrence Eagleburger, a part of Bush I’s team, as to why Bush took the decision to invade Iraq:

    QUOTE: We should be frank about what moved them to act.
    It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.
    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. . . .

    This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson.” END QUOTE.

    Engel concluded,

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion . . .a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .
    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence.” End quote.

    In other words, Bush’s goal in invading Iraq in 1991 was to establish USA (and zionist) hegemony, a vision that matches closely the vision of neoconservatives, with whom we must assume Bush I was closely aligned, given the REAL historical fact of the first point, above, with this caveat: by linking his actions against Iraq in 1991 with World War II, Bush expands the continuum to reveal that just as a US invasion of Iraq in 1991 (as well as 2003) was an unnecessary war but was joined to establish American-zionist hegemony, so too was World War II an unnecessary war, fought to establish American-zionist hegemony.

    5. You wrote:

    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.

    Here’s what Engel had to say about that decision:

    a. Bush 41 was “constrained by the Arab-Israeli dynamic:” if the US coalition — of which Israel was NOT a part — stayed in the region too long, Israel might seek to retaliate against Iraq. As well, Engel echoed your sentiment:

    Harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism.

    I have a hard time understanding the distinction between Bush’s New World Order vision and neocolonialism, in light of the REAL history that US was imposing itself and its will against the wishes of the indigenous Arabs.

    But Engel’s third point is extremely important. Engel said:

    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.
    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.
    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again.

    That is,
    a. Bush’s team was “99% certain” that the Iraqi people and army would overthrow their own leader.
    b. They believe to this day that “Saddam got lucky.”
    c. They would — and have — made the same bet again.

    This expectation and bet is against all historic odds!

    The US and British bombed the hell out of Germany on the expectation that destroying the morale of German civilians would lead to the capitulation of the German government, but it did not.

    USA and others imposed sanctions that starved to death a million Iraqis — including 500,000 children, but sanctions did not bring about the capitulation of Saddam.

    US Congress imposed, and continues to impose, sanctions on Iran in the expectation that sanctions will cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government. California congressman Ed Royce enunciated this exact scheme in 2007. So far, it has not worked.

    REAL history has shown that Sanctions do. not. work.

    The people of a nation tend to rally around their leadership when it is under threat rather than ally with an invading force that seeks to overthrow their state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Hi S2C,


    I know about the argument you are making, but I don't quite buy it.


    I don't think Bush I was as much of a tool of "Zionist aggression" as you claim.

    Had the world ALLOWED Saddams' invasion and annexation of Kuwait, in 1990, to pass ,unattended , it would have un-wound all the most meaningful , potent reforms of post WWII.

    Many argue that Bush I may have lost his second term bid because he sought to impose the same principle, on Israel, as he did with Iraq, and withhold all aid to Israel, if it continued building settlements in Palestine.

    I think that may be true.

    If its not OK for Saddam to do it, in Kuwait, why is acceptable for our ally, Israel, to do it in the West bank, in Palestine ?


    Its not.

    I don't really think the arguments you pose, in your "quotations" hold much weight.

    Bush I made it clear that removing Saddam from Kuwait and degrading his military capability to do so in the future ,was the mission.....consistent with the U.N. resolutions..AND consistent with the law..........NOT 'regime change".

    Sorry S2C, but the facts are right in this case.

    There was no "debate" among the world powers, whether Saddams' invasion of Kuwait, never really happened, that it was all just fabricated "Zionist Fraud"...suggesting he did., when he really didn't !

    Sorry , S2C, he really DID invade Kuwait, no two ways about it.

    You can try to slice that cheesecake any way you want...but its still cheese in the middle.

    Iraq's invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait really did occur.

    Which is a SUPREME international crime.

    And its right, not to let it stand.

    This is good law, and good use of our military.

    On the other hand...

    The Bush II, 2003 invasion of Iraq was based entirely on the "fraudulent claim" he and his WMD 's were an imminent, impending threat to our Nation.

    This was a big fat lie.....

    so was the bogus claim it was "Saddams anthrax" in Senator Leahy's office.

    These were "concocted pretexts"......Phony baloney !...to sell the American people on the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    (which was not only a supreme international crime but turned out to be" supremely expensive" to boot.)

    They are NOT the same thing , S2C, and any who suggest they are, are frauds too.

    You are no exception.

    Learn the difference.

    , @Carroll Price
    Solonto,
    I appreciate your input on what actually led up to the 1st Gulf War. I would add that anyone who's tempted to think the Jew-run regime in Washington does anything to benefit the people of any country other than Israel, are sadly mistaken. They don't give a damn about the American people, let alone those of Kuwait.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    The only definitive "proof" is that several dozen motorist stuck in a traffic jam adjacent to the Pentagon publicly stated that they observed an airliner approach the building at high speed and at ground level altitude, with one wing actually striking and knocking over a street lamp post adjacent to the building. Why numerous security camera videos that would have recorded the entire episode for all to see were immediately seized and deep-sixed by Secret Service and FBI agents defies all logical explanations. With the a possible explanation being that the videos might show an entirely different type plane from an airliner actually hitting the building. Or it could be that the secrecy involving the event is for the purpose of simply aiding in the over-all cover-up by adding an additional layer of questions and confusion. There's also major questions of a similar nature associated with the supposed crash of flight #93 near Shanksville, PA. It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes? For what it's worth my own personal theory about Flight 93 is that, like flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, it was supposed to made a U-turn over Maryland or eastern PA and return to fly into building #7, but that the pilot or flight engineer on that particular flight may have figured out what was going on an managed to regain control of the plane, thus necessitating the order from Dick Cheney to have it shot down to prevent it from landing and allowing access to the programs stored inside the digitally programmed flight controller and other control electronics (radios etc) on the plane.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GgZa9V0A8&feature=player_embedded
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peIK3ZSxrHQ&feature=player_embedded

    It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes?

    or the passengers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @alexander
    Hey Rurik,

    You know I watched the video footage of the alleged airliner striking "our" pentagon, quite a few times....and, in all honesty, not once was I ever convinced in watching it, that it was struck by an airliner.....I just saw no evidence indicating this was the case....

    Did you ?

    Was there lots of crumpled, charred, fuselage at the impact sight.....I never saw any....did you ?

    As a matter of fact...I never saw the airliner flying into it.....just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall.....That is all I can recall.....do you know more about it?

    Hey Alexander,

    I never saw the airliner flying into it…..just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall…..That is all I can recall…..do you know more about it?

    not too much more, only that, as Carroll mentioned below, there were witnesses who said they saw a plane, and that the FBI went around to every convenience store and gas station and every were else they thought a video recording might exist and confiscated them all.

    Also that from what I understand the Pentagon is some of the most surveilled real estate on the planet. That there must have been scores or more of cameras watching from virtually every angle of that plane’s approach and even its impact with the Pentagon. And that’s not to mention all the radar and even satellite surveillance that’s probably trained on the Pentagon, especially during the kind of “drill” they were running that day.

    I watched a video once of a pilot explaining that if people did see a plane, that it doesn’t mean that the plane simply headed toward the Pentagon and then diverted at the final moment.

    I don’t know. But the crash site doesn’t look to me like it was hit by a huge Boeing, and the only video they show is of the explosion. WHY?

    Also where’s the missing trillions from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had said they found was missing only a few days earlier?

    No one cares?!

    A trillion is a lot of money. Seems to me someone ought to care.

    Perhaps Michael Hastings cared

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Philip Giraldi
    I think both you and Robin are correct - even at the time there was a sense that Desert Storm had been set up under somewhat mysterious circumstances, to include the April Glaspie missteps with Saddam and the Kuwait directed false narrative but I think you are closer to the real objective in your citation of "Vietnam syndrome." I was in CIA at the time and there was a palpable sense within the national security/defense community that a large scale, successful war was needed to close the book on Vietnam. It turned out to be Saddam but it could just as easily been Iran or some other designated victim. One might say that we are now experiencing the "Iraq syndrome" as an inhibitor on starting a new war. If so, long may it prevail!

    Good points, Phil,

    and also to Laurie and Robin.

    I think one can make an argument that Saddam may have been mouse trapped into invading Kuwait in 1990. That is fair enough.

    But lets be clear about this…….he did, in fact, make the choice to invade Kuwait.

    Which is REAL history…..not fraud.

    Like the anthrax scare, eleven years later…which was a true defrauding of the American people.

    There is a difference, and in my book, its a big one.

    I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991.

    As a matter of fact, Ambassador Joe Wilson, the self same individual who pulled back the curtain on the Neocon Niger “yellow cake” forgery in 2002, was also credited with delivering the message to Saddam, personally, in 1991.

    There is a huge difference in my mind between engaging a state that has initiated war of aggression in invaded another, which Iraq did in fact do, in 1990, and the US initiating war of aggression in invading another, which we did, tragically, in 2003.

    In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions.

    In 2003, we BROKE the law, and became the transgressor.

    We became the very “evil” we should all be standing against.

    I kinda disagree with you folks,on the thread that it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior.

    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.

    Which is precisely what happened when we launched OUR illegal invasion ten years later.

    I believe 1991 Operation Desert Storm, has much more in common with Putin’s recent incursions in Syria, against ISIS, in terms of initiating a principled and legal response to aggression, than the catastrophic 2003 invasion, which was all Neocon fraud and aggression from the get go.

    Our government has been transformed , by the 9-11 Neocon “coup”, into a sinister, malevolent entity…. a tragic and criminal enterprise…that has utter disdain for the truth… and no respect for the rule of law or the justice it is supposed to serve.

    How very sad this is the case…… but it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Several facts are omitted from your analysis, Alexander, that if duly considered would, indeed, support the proposition that "it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior."

    First: It's possible to locate the inception of this "large continuum," at least wrt to the Middle East, in a conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem in July 1979. I suggest that this conference laid the blueprint for the global war on terror. George H. W. Bush was among the key speakers at that conference. see International Terrorism: Challenge and Response


    2. Saddam was our guy, and it was doing the US's dirty work that got Iraq into the situation it was in re Kuwait; namely, US egged Iraq into waging war against Iran 1980 - 1988. Iraq's expenditures in that war drained Iraq's economy. When Saddam asked the Arab states -- who had also cheered Iraq in warring against Iran but had not helped finance it -- to help Iraq dig out of its economic hole, Kuwait responded by refusing Saddam's request and lowering oil prices. Oil was Iraq's sole source of revenue, but Kuwait had massive investments in Western markets to sustain its economy. see Secret Dossier: The Hidden Agenda Behind the Gulf War, by Pierre Salinger

    3. Your assertion,
    "I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991."
    is incorrect; that is, it is not "REAL history", it is incomplete history.
    A negotiated settlement, to which Saddam was willing to agree, was in the works. The Bush I regime would not permit it.

    see: King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East


    "the U.S. was doing Israel's "dirty work" in opposing Saddam Hussein in 1990 and could have negotiated an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait without resorting to war." [nb. recall also that Israel bombed Osirick in 1983, which induced Saddam to ramp up his pursuit of nuclear weapons]
     
    and Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War
    by Jeffrey Engel (Editor)

    Engel, an historian, is director of the Bush Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist Univ.

    4. Your analysis claims that "In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions."
    In a discussion of his book, Engel focused on the decision-making process leading up to Bush 41's invasion of Iraq, and also of the reasoning behind not pursuing Saddam into Baghdad. Engel quoted Lawrence Eagleburger, a part of Bush I's team, as to why Bush took the decision to invade Iraq:


    QUOTE: We should be frank about what moved them to act.
    It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.
    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.
    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.
    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. . . .

    This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson." END QUOTE.
     

    Engel concluded,

    Bush saw in the Gulf War AN OPPORTUNITY as well as in invasion . . .a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .
    Ultimately this vision of a new world order based on sovereignty and stability is what drove his thinking when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In a similar vein he said, “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence." End quote.
     
    In other words, Bush's goal in invading Iraq in 1991 was to establish USA (and zionist) hegemony, a vision that matches closely the vision of neoconservatives, with whom we must assume Bush I was closely aligned, given the REAL historical fact of the first point, above, with this caveat: by linking his actions against Iraq in 1991 with World War II, Bush expands the continuum to reveal that just as a US invasion of Iraq in 1991 (as well as 2003) was an unnecessary war but was joined to establish American-zionist hegemony, so too was World War II an unnecessary war, fought to establish American-zionist hegemony.

    5. You wrote:


    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.
     
    Here's what Engel had to say about that decision:

    a. Bush 41 was "constrained by the Arab-Israeli dynamic:" if the US coalition -- of which Israel was NOT a part -- stayed in the region too long, Israel might seek to retaliate against Iraq. As well, Engel echoed your sentiment:


    Harken back to what I said earlier about the DESIRE among many in the Middle East for an Arab solution. He was concerned if you went further towards Baghdad and in fact took over Baghdad and deposed Saddam Hussein by force that this would create greater Enmity within the coalition among his Arab members who would view that in some way as a re-establishment of western colonialism.
     
    I have a hard time understanding the distinction between Bush's New World Order vision and neocolonialism, in light of the REAL history that US was imposing itself and its will against the wishes of the indigenous Arabs.

    But Engel's third point is extremely important. Engel said:


    But there’s a very important distinction here which I would like to make which I think was a revelation to me within the archives and that a there has always been a question when the decision comes — when the study of the decision comes up about whether or not American forces should have continued on to Baghdad in 1991. This was not a discussion within the White House for a very important reason: The ultimate goal or one of the the ultimate goals beyond the liberation of Kuwait was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. There was a 100 percent certainty on the part of high level American officials that this was going to happen anyway.
    Saddam Hussain had been embarrassed; his own people rising up against him, his own army was out to get him. If he lived weeks it would have been a shock instead of days. 999 times out of 1,000 I think that is exactly how things would have played out, that Saddam would not have survived.
    Unfortunately from the Bush administration’s perspective, George H. W. Bush’s perspective, Saddam rolled the dice and made it. But I think that given the question and those odds again I suspect they would take the same bet again.
     
    That is,
    a. Bush's team was "99% certain" that the Iraqi people and army would overthrow their own leader.
    b. They believe to this day that "Saddam got lucky."
    c. They would -- and have -- made the same bet again.

    This expectation and bet is against all historic odds!

    The US and British bombed the hell out of Germany on the expectation that destroying the morale of German civilians would lead to the capitulation of the German government, but it did not.

    USA and others imposed sanctions that starved to death a million Iraqis -- including 500,000 children, but sanctions did not bring about the capitulation of Saddam.

    US Congress imposed, and continues to impose, sanctions on Iran in the expectation that sanctions will cause the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow their government. California congressman Ed Royce enunciated this exact scheme in 2007. So far, it has not worked.

    REAL history has shown that Sanctions do. not. work.

    The people of a nation tend to rally around their leadership when it is under threat rather than ally with an invading force that seeks to overthrow their state.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2158218-hillary-clintons-letter-to-haim-saban-against-bds.html

    Hillary's anti BDS letter to Haim Saban

    Hawkish Hillary Clinton and Her Israel-First Political Sugar Daddy Haim Saban:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2015/06/15/hawkish-hillary-clinton-and-her-israel-first-political-sugar-daddy-haim-saban/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    The only definitive "proof" is that several dozen motorist stuck in a traffic jam adjacent to the Pentagon publicly stated that they observed an airliner approach the building at high speed and at ground level altitude, with one wing actually striking and knocking over a street lamp post adjacent to the building. Why numerous security camera videos that would have recorded the entire episode for all to see were immediately seized and deep-sixed by Secret Service and FBI agents defies all logical explanations. With the a possible explanation being that the videos might show an entirely different type plane from an airliner actually hitting the building. Or it could be that the secrecy involving the event is for the purpose of simply aiding in the over-all cover-up by adding an additional layer of questions and confusion. There's also major questions of a similar nature associated with the supposed crash of flight #93 near Shanksville, PA. It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes? For what it's worth my own personal theory about Flight 93 is that, like flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, it was supposed to made a U-turn over Maryland or eastern PA and return to fly into building #7, but that the pilot or flight engineer on that particular flight may have figured out what was going on an managed to regain control of the plane, thus necessitating the order from Dick Cheney to have it shot down to prevent it from landing and allowing access to the programs stored inside the digitally programmed flight controller and other control electronics (radios etc) on the plane.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GgZa9V0A8&feature=player_embedded
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peIK3ZSxrHQ&feature=player_embedded

    Notice the startled reaction of the two individuals standing behind Rummy when he slips-up and admits Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @alexander
    Hey Rurik,

    You know I watched the video footage of the alleged airliner striking "our" pentagon, quite a few times....and, in all honesty, not once was I ever convinced in watching it, that it was struck by an airliner.....I just saw no evidence indicating this was the case....

    Did you ?

    Was there lots of crumpled, charred, fuselage at the impact sight.....I never saw any....did you ?

    As a matter of fact...I never saw the airliner flying into it.....just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall.....That is all I can recall.....do you know more about it?

    The only definitive “proof” is that several dozen motorist stuck in a traffic jam adjacent to the Pentagon publicly stated that they observed an airliner approach the building at high speed and at ground level altitude, with one wing actually striking and knocking over a street lamp post adjacent to the building. Why numerous security camera videos that would have recorded the entire episode for all to see were immediately seized and deep-sixed by Secret Service and FBI agents defies all logical explanations. With the a possible explanation being that the videos might show an entirely different type plane from an airliner actually hitting the building. Or it could be that the secrecy involving the event is for the purpose of simply aiding in the over-all cover-up by adding an additional layer of questions and confusion. There’s also major questions of a similar nature associated with the supposed crash of flight #93 near Shanksville, PA. It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes? For what it’s worth my own personal theory about Flight 93 is that, like flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, it was supposed to made a U-turn over Maryland or eastern PA and return to fly into building #7, but that the pilot or flight engineer on that particular flight may have figured out what was going on an managed to regain control of the plane, thus necessitating the order from Dick Cheney to have it shot down to prevent it from landing and allowing access to the programs stored inside the digitally programmed flight controller and other control electronics (radios etc) on the plane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Notice the startled reaction of the two individuals standing behind Rummy when he slips-up and admits Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania.
    , @Rurik

    It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes?
     
    or the passengers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @L.K
    Carroll Price:

    Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race – including their own kith and kin

     

    Yep, and ain't that just a little sad...

    You might want to show these gullible idiots the following vid, from israeli tv:
    Mocking Jesus(Yeshu) on Israeli Zionist TV - The Crucifixion of Yeshu.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RY83mAr5uA

    L. K,
    Thanks for the suggestion to share the video but it would be a wasted effort since most of my fellow Southerners avoid knowledge like Middle Agers avoided the Plague. Religious nuts in particular are endemic to the area and routinely display their ignorance as badges of honor. How I managed to escape the trap remains a mystery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    George W. Bush was of European origin and as white as they normally come, yet the neocons did pretty well under him. Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race - including their own kith and kin. So explain that one to me.

    Carroll Price:

    Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race – including their own kith and kin

    Yep, and ain’t that just a little sad…

    You might want to show these gullible idiots the following vid, from israeli tv:
    Mocking Jesus(Yeshu) on Israeli Zionist TV – The Crucifixion of Yeshu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    L. K,
    Thanks for the suggestion to share the video but it would be a wasted effort since most of my fellow Southerners avoid knowledge like Middle Agers avoided the Plague. Religious nuts in particular are endemic to the area and routinely display their ignorance as badges of honor. How I managed to escape the trap remains a mystery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rurik
    Very good points on Bernie Mr. Dawson,

    But I wanted to respond to you for another reason all together.

    I've enjoyed your work for a while now, especially over at WRH. And I say Kudos to you for an amazing job at spreading the truth.

    but...

    There was one moment when I was dumbstruck at a comment of yours regarding a truther who wrote a book about it all, but she also mentioned that it wasn't the same passenger jet that took off from Boston that hit the Pentagon. And for this you dismissed her as a kind of crack pot.

    I would just suggest that there are quite a few of us who have no idea what hit the Pentagon, (we'd love to see the videos!), but we doubt it was the same passenger jet that took off from Boston. Did I misinterpret something you said?

    Any thoughts sir?

    Hey Rurik,

    You know I watched the video footage of the alleged airliner striking “our” pentagon, quite a few times….and, in all honesty, not once was I ever convinced in watching it, that it was struck by an airliner…..I just saw no evidence indicating this was the case….

    Did you ?

    Was there lots of crumpled, charred, fuselage at the impact sight…..I never saw any….did you ?

    As a matter of fact…I never saw the airliner flying into it…..just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall…..That is all I can recall…..do you know more about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    The only definitive "proof" is that several dozen motorist stuck in a traffic jam adjacent to the Pentagon publicly stated that they observed an airliner approach the building at high speed and at ground level altitude, with one wing actually striking and knocking over a street lamp post adjacent to the building. Why numerous security camera videos that would have recorded the entire episode for all to see were immediately seized and deep-sixed by Secret Service and FBI agents defies all logical explanations. With the a possible explanation being that the videos might show an entirely different type plane from an airliner actually hitting the building. Or it could be that the secrecy involving the event is for the purpose of simply aiding in the over-all cover-up by adding an additional layer of questions and confusion. There's also major questions of a similar nature associated with the supposed crash of flight #93 near Shanksville, PA. It could be that Flight #93 and the planes hitting the Twin Towers were not the same commercial airliners that were supposedly hi-jacked. But if not, what happened to those planes? For what it's worth my own personal theory about Flight 93 is that, like flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, it was supposed to made a U-turn over Maryland or eastern PA and return to fly into building #7, but that the pilot or flight engineer on that particular flight may have figured out what was going on an managed to regain control of the plane, thus necessitating the order from Dick Cheney to have it shot down to prevent it from landing and allowing access to the programs stored inside the digitally programmed flight controller and other control electronics (radios etc) on the plane.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GgZa9V0A8&feature=player_embedded
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peIK3ZSxrHQ&feature=player_embedded
    , @Rurik
    Hey Alexander,

    I never saw the airliner flying into it…..just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall…..That is all I can recall…..do you know more about it?
     
    not too much more, only that, as Carroll mentioned below, there were witnesses who said they saw a plane, and that the FBI went around to every convenience store and gas station and every were else they thought a video recording might exist and confiscated them all.

    Also that from what I understand the Pentagon is some of the most surveilled real estate on the planet. That there must have been scores or more of cameras watching from virtually every angle of that plane's approach and even its impact with the Pentagon. And that's not to mention all the radar and even satellite surveillance that's probably trained on the Pentagon, especially during the kind of "drill" they were running that day.

    I watched a video once of a pilot explaining that if people did see a plane, that it doesn't mean that the plane simply headed toward the Pentagon and then diverted at the final moment.

    I don't know. But the crash site doesn't look to me like it was hit by a huge Boeing, and the only video they show is of the explosion. WHY?

    Also where's the missing trillions from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had said they found was missing only a few days earlier?

    No one cares?!

    A trillion is a lot of money. Seems to me someone ought to care.

    Perhaps Michael Hastings cared
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • At least Trump (and Kasich) are skipping Adelson’s RJC event in Las Vegas but pandering Cruz will be there according to following article:

    Cruz builds support among GOP Jews as Trump skips event
    :

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/cruz-builds-support-among-gop-jews-trump-skips-075229966–election.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    Hawkish Hillary Clinton and Her Israel-First Political Sugar Daddy Haim Saban:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2015/06/15/hawkish-hillary-clinton-and-her-israel-first-political-sugar-daddy-haim-saban/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    It's real - just like me.

    Great, you should check your inbox.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for 'changes' that never happen."

    I read you five-by-five, Mr. Price. Voting in America is an exercise in futility.

    This year, though, if it's Trump vs. Our Lady of the Pantsuits, I'm emerging from hibernation to vote for the former.

    The following is my very personal view. Trump has stepped to the other side. His:

    “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Iowa.

    Well, sucking up to AIPAC has been much, much worse than shooting someone in the middle of the 5th avenue. This is because many more US citizens get shot or blown up because of AIPAC initiated wars than a single murder on the 5th. I am absolutely sure that this attempt at pacification of the Lobby has not worked terribly well (they do not trust him and will continue to sabotage him), whilst it has created a huge black mark on his reputation among his voters.

    Besides, it is not likely than the AIPAC controllers (neocons) will let Trump through to nomination even if he wins the Primaries.

    If I were a US voter and Trump somehow got through, I would feel very unsure whether I should stay at home or vote Hilary out (rather than vote Trump in). If they do get rid of Trump, since he cannot be an independent any more in a few states, I would definitely stay at home rather than have to choose between the End-of-the-World Rapturist Lying Ted and the Mad War Cow Hitlary. It is like a choice between: would you prefer to be fried or to be roasted alive?

    As mentioned, just my personal view.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Consider too that Trump, as a WASP Republican, would not so easily be given a pass by the people on war-mongering as would a liberal Democratic women ...or even, though to a lesser degree, an Hispanic Cruz.

    Going back 7+ years, say Bush II could have been elected to a third term; his handlers would be unlikely to have been as successful in getting folks to go along with expanding war into Syria and Libya (and a coup in Ukraine) as they were able to do under a black Democrat.

    The last thing the neocons want is a white European Republican ...at least not when they can have as their spokesmodel the first woman president.

    George W. Bush was of European origin and as white as they normally come, yet the neocons did pretty well under him. Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race – including their own kith and kin. So explain that one to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Carroll Price:

    Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race – including their own kith and kin

     

    Yep, and ain't that just a little sad...

    You might want to show these gullible idiots the following vid, from israeli tv:
    Mocking Jesus(Yeshu) on Israeli Zionist TV - The Crucifixion of Yeshu.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RY83mAr5uA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @geokat62
    Hey, CP. Just following-up on my previous comment:

    Is the email address you use here on Unz real or fictitious? If it is real, you’ll be hearing from me.
     
    Let me know.

    It’s real – just like me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Great, you should check your inbox.
    , @geokat62
    Any luck, CP?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for 'changes' that never happen."

    I read you five-by-five, Mr. Price. Voting in America is an exercise in futility.

    This year, though, if it's Trump vs. Our Lady of the Pantsuits, I'm emerging from hibernation to vote for the former.

    Since Israel is directly responsible for most of America’s problems, and since both candidates(Trump and Hillary) have already pledged fealty to the Chosen, any other minor differences on issues would have little if no effect anyway. The bottom line is that if Hillary and Trump end up as the two presidential candidates, it would likely make little, if any difference which one ends up taking orders from Bibi and AIPAC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    Marxism/Zionism at work. This is what happen when Marxist/Zionist gain full control over a country's governmental structure. The only reason similar laws relating to holocaust denial are not already in force here in the US is due to the Bill Of Rights (1st amendment) which guarantees freedom of speech free of government interference, and a freedom that Marxist/Zionist are laboring night and day to effectively dismantle through the implementation of speech codes, referred to as Politically Correct Speech (PC)).

    http://www.dw.com/en/frances-far-right-jean-marie-le-pen-convicted-for-holocaust-denial/a-19168158

    Hey, CP. Just following-up on my previous comment:

    Is the email address you use here on Unz real or fictitious? If it is real, you’ll be hearing from me.

    Let me know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    It's real - just like me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Consider too that Trump, as a WASP Republican, would not so easily be given a pass by the people on war-mongering as would a liberal Democratic women …or even, though to a lesser degree, an Hispanic Cruz.

    Going back 7+ years, say Bush II could have been elected to a third term; his handlers would be unlikely to have been as successful in getting folks to go along with expanding war into Syria and Libya (and a coup in Ukraine) as they were able to do under a black Democrat.

    The last thing the neocons want is a white European Republican …at least not when they can have as their spokesmodel the first woman president.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    George W. Bush was of European origin and as white as they normally come, yet the neocons did pretty well under him. Most White Europeans I know here in the bible-belt deep South are far more devoted to alien Jews than they are to their own race - including their own kith and kin. So explain that one to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price

    A person never knows what they’re really going to get when they vote.
     
    I do. Simple observation should be enough to convince anyone that their vote will get exactly what it has gotten for the past 40 years , which is more of the same. Do what I've done for the past 30 years. Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for "changes" that never happen.

    ” . . . Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for ‘changes’ that never happen.”

    I read you five-by-five, Mr. Price. Voting in America is an exercise in futility.

    This year, though, if it’s Trump vs. Our Lady of the Pantsuits, I’m emerging from hibernation to vote for the former.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, Kiza
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Since Israel is directly responsible for most of America's problems, and since both candidates(Trump and Hillary) have already pledged fealty to the Chosen, any other minor differences on issues would have little if no effect anyway. The bottom line is that if Hillary and Trump end up as the two presidential candidates, it would likely make little, if any difference which one ends up taking orders from Bibi and AIPAC.
    , @Kiza
    The following is my very personal view. Trump has stepped to the other side. His:

    "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally in Iowa.
     
    Well, sucking up to AIPAC has been much, much worse than shooting someone in the middle of the 5th avenue. This is because many more US citizens get shot or blown up because of AIPAC initiated wars than a single murder on the 5th. I am absolutely sure that this attempt at pacification of the Lobby has not worked terribly well (they do not trust him and will continue to sabotage him), whilst it has created a huge black mark on his reputation among his voters.

    Besides, it is not likely than the AIPAC controllers (neocons) will let Trump through to nomination even if he wins the Primaries.

    If I were a US voter and Trump somehow got through, I would feel very unsure whether I should stay at home or vote Hilary out (rather than vote Trump in). If they do get rid of Trump, since he cannot be an independent any more in a few states, I would definitely stay at home rather than have to choose between the End-of-the-World Rapturist Lying Ted and the Mad War Cow Hitlary. It is like a choice between: would you prefer to be fried or to be roasted alive?

    As mentioned, just my personal view.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kiza
    Ok, according to Madeleine Albright all US women who do not vote for Hillary Clinton have a special place reserved in Hell. Now, let us have a look at a special place that the Libyan and Syrian women, especially the underage girls, have got in Hell which Obama and Hilary Clinton created. It is the Hell of brisk trade in under-age girls by resourceful Turkish entrepreneurs.

    Some excerpts:
    1) "Girls between the ages of twelve and sixteen are referred to as pistachios, those between seventeen and twenty are called cherries, twenty to twenty-two are apples, and anyone older is a watermelon." — From a report on Turkey, by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT).
    2) Although the desperate victims are their Muslim sisters and brothers, wealthy Arab states do not take in refugees. The people in this area know too well that asylum seekers would bring with them problems, both social and economic. For many Muslim men such as wealthy, aging Saudis, it is easier to buy Syrian children from Turkey, Syria or Jordan as cheap sex slaves.
    3) Evidence, both witnessed and forensic, indicates that in every city where Syrian refugees have settled, prostitution has drastically increased. Young women between the ages of 15 and 20 are most commonly prostituted, but girls as young as thirteen are also exploited.
    4) "Many men in Turkey practice polygamy with Syrian girls or women, even though polygamy is illegal in Turkey," the lawyer Abdulhalim Yilmaz, head of Mazlumder's Refugee Commission, told Gatestone Institute. The horror is that Turkey is the country that the EU is entrusting to "solve" the serious problem of refugees and migrants.
    5) "There are markets of prostitution in Antep. Those are all state-controlled places. Hundreds of refugees -- women and children -- are sold to men much older than they are," said Keskin. "We found that women are forced into prostitution because they want to buy bread for their children."

    The full report: http://www.mazlumder.org/webimage/files/The%20Report%20on%20Syrian%20Women%20Refugees%282%29.pdf.

    If this Hell on Earth is for women who cannot vote for Hillary, I cannot even imagine the Hell that Madeleine Albright & Co. prepared for those US women who can vote for Hilary but do not.

    No need to ask Albright if it was worth it smashing up Libya and Syria.

    Who is now distributing the Viagra pills to the old Saudis to rape 12 years old Syrian girls Hilary? Did you get this business?

    “OK, according to Madeleine Albright all US women who do not vote for Hillary Clinton have a special place reserved in Hell. . . .”

    I hope there’s a reservation in Hell for Albright, that degenerate hag.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mark Green
    Thank you, Philip. That was a very sold assessment. I still prefer Trump over Bernie but it's close. Bernie is definitely the peace candidate. But let's not forget that Sanders lived on a kibbutz. Those are his people over there. Sanders will therefore never get really tough on Israel. Yet that's exactly what's needed.

    Might Israeli espionage in Washington (and mischief elsewhere) increase during a Sanders Administration? Probably. This might not be the case with Trump since 1) he's used to being the alpha male, and 2) he doesn't have any relatives living in the Holy Land.

    I also worry that Bernie's spread-the-wealth socialism will enlarge government without necessarily producing a higher standard of living. But he's on the right track when it comes to addressing income inequality. Too bad Bernie's nutty about AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and soft on illegal immigration. Therefore, for this angry, white male, Bernie's NOT the one.

    Trump might in fact become a peace President based on his professed ideology of 'saving money'. Trump can use this political value as a shield against the neocons. After all, those trillion-dollar wars of theirs do add up.

    As for those who claim that Zio-Washington's wars-of-choice are driven by the MIC (military industrial complex), evidence suggests otherwise. After all, you can still have enormous defense expenditures without actually dropping bombs or invading Arab states. Boeing and Raytheon get paid either way. The arms manufacturers don't need hot wars to rake in a ton of dough.

    Indeed, consider the vast defense spending, for instance, during the cold war era. This military spending (preparedness against the USSR) was huge (as measured by its percentage of our national GDP) but there was no actual conflict most of the time (Viet Nam excepted). The MIC did just fine even during Washington's years of relative tranquility.

    Yet today, we are in an era where the US enjoys unrivaled military power; but we are beset by uninterrupted, serial, first-strike attacks upon small, puny and distant countries. This is a criminal enterprise. And it's very much tied to the political efforts of a lobby not directly tied to US weapons manufacturers.

    Based on this fact alone, all the pro-war cheerleaders seeking the presidency should be disqualified from even running. They are ideological enablers of war crimes. At the very least, they are accessories after the fact.

    Might a little jail time for these war birds set the right example?

    Yep.

    Another reason to like Trump is that--unlike Bernie--he isn't promising 'free' college for students who are hopelessly below-average. What a racket. What a waste. Let's hope that the higher education bubble pops soon. Why not learn online? It's far more efficient (cheaper) and (potentially) more flexible for each individual student.

    As for me, my real education began after I earned my college degree. 'Big Education' has become a colossal scam.

    In any event, the US needs a massive disruption to our political (and educational) establishments. This time around, let's hope that it's either Trump or Bernie that gets the nod.

    “In any event, the US needs a massive disruption to our political (and educational) establishments. . . .”

    Agreed. They’re both like an old Montgomery Ward catalog–big, fat, and full of shit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Bernie Sanders bobbled foreign policy in that Daily News interview
    Wed, Apr 6

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-bobbled-foreign-policy-1401903242035254.html

    Bernie Sanders doesn’t know whether President Obama’s signature counterterrorism strategy, drone strikes, is the right approach to the problem.

    Fifteen years into a bitter national debate about Guantanamo Bay, he hasn’t thought much about where he would imprison and interrogate a captured terrorist leader.

    He can’t explain his call for Israel to pull back from some settlements on Palestinian land because he doesn’t have “some paper” in front of him.

    He also can’t say why he doesn’t support Palestinians taking action against Israel before the International Criminal Court.

    Those are all takeaways from a New York Daily News interview with Sanders,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Sanders isn't stupid. He's weak on implementation because detailing plans would break his coalition with mainstream Democrats and force him to criticize Obama.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It occurs to me that no matter how reticent about war the occupant of the White House might be, their hand could be forced by the occurrence of a major false flag event. Also, information fed to them could be selective and distorted in order to gain some desired results. JFK was deliberately lied to about the impending Bay of Pigs invasion, making him think it would lead to popular revolts against Castro; once committed and losing they tried to manipulate him into believing he had no choice but to come in with planes and then troops to salvage the operation. He saw that it had no popular support and cut it off right there, earning the enmity of many. He realized the CIA tried to fool him and stated he was going to take the CIA apart, which he never lived to do. Although LBJ was right on board with using the Gulf of Tonkin faked incident as a pretext for war, it’s also been said he wasn’t totally aware of how fake and concocted it actually was. Presidents seem to be isolated and dependent upon others for news and views which could be subject to distortion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • a sidebar here, but…War, what is it Good For? Undoing big mistakes sometimes at least.

    NYTimes.com: Blaming Policy, Not Islam, for Belgium’s Radicalized Youth ( policy without a plan) War like never seen before.

    Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 11:54 AM
    Subject: Fw: NYTimes.com: Blaming Policy, Not Islam, for Belgium’s Radicalized Youth ( policy without a plan ) War like never seen before.

    with regard to Isis….

    ““How is it that people who were born here in Brussels, in Paris, can call heroes the people who commit violence and terror? That is the real question we’re facing.”
    Friends who teach the equivalent of high school seniors in the predominantly Muslim districts of Molenbeek and Schaerbeek told him that “90 percent of their students, 17, 18 years old, called them heroes,” he said.”

    then, the liberal jew pol says.

    “…Mr. Goldstein said. “In Brussels, everyone lives in the city, and we chose a model of diversity through mixing of populations in the same neighborhoods.”
    But “we failed,” he said. “We failed in Molenbeek” and Schaerbeek, too, to ensure the mixing of populations.”

    First, as a detail on how stupid these liberals are, or better, blinded by their ideological obsessions, the “model of diversity through mixing populations” was not a ‘mixing’ model.
    It is impossible to bureaucratically mix the ‘populations’ unless of course you are Obongo and his merry band of apparatchiks who are now going to disperse negroes in the white folks’ neighborhoods by building “affordable housing’” in the white suburbs of the US, or so they think despite the sound of Trumpbeats.

    “90 percent of their students…called them [the Isis terrorists ] heroes”

    So the liberals say it ( the failure to integrate muzzies ) is just a matter of not mixing the ‘populations’. In other words, it is a Culture problem. This is the standard Ideological or Religious answer to all questions for liberals. ‘Populations’ is the coward/apparatchik euphemism for Race. Just mix the races together and presto…we get a world citizen, which incidentally is actually a white person, This too drives the coloreds crazy because 1, they don’t want to be white, and 2, they don’t have what it takes to be white, and 3, the reason they do not have what it takes to be white is that their genes are very different, starting with the genes for intelligence….what with Arabs trailing Whites by 15 points of IQ.

    So, 90 percent of the muzzie youth see the Isis terrorists as heroes. This is great. Europe will have a war like no other war ever experienced in history. Ten percent and more of Europe is now muslim.

    How do you fight what used to be called the Enemy Within from the 50s communist-scare of the US? In the US it was just a few thousand communists, jewish and otherwise.

    Get ready for the Show of Shows, the Mother of all Civil Wars, The Greatest Story Ever Told, the I told you so War of Wars.

    Like Enoch Powell said back in 1968 in London, in his Rivers of Blood speech. There was one prescient guy, like Jean Raspail and his Camp of the Saints…1971. (while leftie fools like me were dreaming the Impossible Dream…Humanity, One World, kumbaiyah, black and white together we shall overcome, been to the mountain top. Now I have been to the Other mountain top and I see oceans of blood rising.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Laurie Calhoun
    Is there a type-o in the above article, @Philip Giraldi?

    Sanders supported the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo, which was marketed by the Clinton administration as a "humanitarian intervention". But was there a vote on the Libya intervention in 2011? Wasn't that an executive action by Obama? He claimed that it wasn't a war, since he wasn't sending soldiers and therefore did not require the assent of Congress.

    Afterwards, a group of Republican legislators wrote a letter criticizing Obama for abuse of executive power...

    You’re right Laurie – there was no vote but Sanders said he supported it on humanitarian grounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Giraldi, with his support for Sanders, has outed himself as green badger at the CIA. Funny that his liaison at Langley won't even allow him to support the best foreign policy candidate (the loud mouth real estate developer). A sure tip off that that guy is legit. Sanders has supported neocon wars in the past and now is for arming Syrian "rebels" and regime change in Syria. Beware of all these former CIA blue badgers who somehow, after decades in the agency, have some road to Damascus epiphany (how convenient) and have become realists. Yeah, sure. I hope the money is worth it green badger (aka, greedy bastards).

    Sorry to disillusion you Tony but I have had no CIA badge of any kind since 2002!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Bernie Sanders is a warmonger and liar who has people duped worst than Obama did in 08 http://youtu.be/NdHtfKZ9iy8

    Ryan Dawson Ryan Dawson
    Bernie Sanders a Warmonger and Economically Illiterate 9
    BY RYAN DAWSON ON FEBRUARY 8, 2016 REPORT
    Bernie Sanders a Warmonger and Economically illiterate

    Bernie Sander’s Foreign Policy of warmongering
    He wanted military intervention in Yugoslavia. He voted yes on Bombing Kosovo.
    (One of his staff members resigned over it)
    He voted to finance the Iraq War multiple times. Supports the war in Afghanistan and voted for it.
    Supported the coup in Ukraine and voted to give 1 billion dollars towards it.
    Supports aiding Al Qaeda in Syria and calls them “moderate rebels”
    Voted to invade Libya. Clinton said “With all due respect, senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gaddafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution.” About the only truthful thing that’s ever come out of her mouth. Bernie was a cosponsor of the war propaganda resolution.
    Voted for sanctions on Iran and Libya
    Pro Drone Strike
    He’s an imperialist
    He supported US intervention in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia
    He Supports Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen and he is in total denial that Saudi Arabia is backing ISIS not fighting them.

    His only vote against a war was Iraq however many Democrats did that and as a vote against Bush not the War. Bernie voted to fund the war and had no problem with it once Obama was in charge of it. He also supported the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of children.
    He also was against impeaching George Bush and called it impractical.
    He gutted the audit the fed bill (the night before it was being voted on)
    He voted for several NDAAs
    Calls Assad a dictator.
    Totally supports Israel. He told people in a town hall meeting to shut up about it.

    Of all the corporate welfare which Bernie likes to droll on and on about, there is none larger than all of the military interventions he supports. He also supported the F35 program which of course was jointly built with the Israelis and cost 1.5 trillion dollars so far to build an aircraft that doesn’t even really work. With a 18 trillion dollar debt 8.3% of it is the F35 project alone. For you millennials who can’t do math, that’s 1.5/18. Of course parts of the F35 are built in Vermont. Bernie like everyone he criticizes fights for his slice of the pork projects and helps waste trillions.

    But forget about the waste that Bernie will not cut. Look at all the taxes and spending increases that he wants.
    Bernie’s Economic illiteracy

    Sanders wants to increase the payroll tax. Basically punish people who work to give free shit to people who don’t. They never look at the underlying problem of why colleges are so expensive in the first place: Government guaranteed student loans!

    Listen up millennials if the colleges know your loan is guaranteed then they increase the cost of tuition to match it. Colleges are investment vehicles for defense industries. Your tuition isn’t spent on education it’s spent on wall street.

    Under the cloak of education the government is laundering money through the banks to students as a means of increasing the investment capital of universities into the war industries. They don’t care about you and furthermore they aren’t even educating you or preparing you for the real world. They are indoctrinating you and saddling you with debt.

    Sanders is part of the problem. If you really want affordable college then get rid of the government involvement. Prior to guaranteed loans, colleges were affordable. Ron Paul and Austrian economics are correct. Peter Schiff and I explained.

    Healthcare same problem, instead of trying to meet the price by giving the government more control and raising taxes to do it, why not ask why the prices for procedures and drugs are so high? Overly protective patents, medicare and medicaid abuse, regional protections to prevent competitive pressure on the price of insurance etc. It’s a complicate topic but for more Dr. Philip Caper and I discussed what is wrong with US healthcare here for 50 mins.


    Bernie talks real big about going after the 1% and taxing people more. Well 47% of congress are millionaires compared to 1% of the rest of the country. When you tax someone that money does not go to the poor, it goes to the government and as we have seen the government wastes it on militarism which as shown above, Sanders supports. He wont cut any of the spending, instead he wants to spend more by taxing more, aka a typical tax and spend Democrat. He voted with the Democrats 96% of the time. That’s not an independent or a maverick. The US already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Bernie wants to raises taxes above 50%! Tax money goes to the government. That is basically like taking your money and throwing it into a fire and then expecting ice cream to pop out. Businesses will pack up and leave if you tax them 50% or in some cases even higher. The more money a business has the better. The more money they give to the government the less money there is to pay workers and thus the fewer jobs that are available. There is a huge difference between “the wealthy” and “wealthy business owners”. Businesses, provide jobs, goods and services. We need them making money. Instead of raising taxes, why not cut the bloated military budget starting with the F35. Why not get rid of excessive Departments, the DHS and TSA, the Department of Commerce, Education and the EPA. But wouldn’t that lead to a regressive disaster? No, I explained why to this Sanders supporter here. As for raising the minimum wage, it sounds good, but it isn’t. Ian Daily explains. http://www.ancreport.com/report/bernie-sanders-a-warmonger-and-economically-illiterate-2/

    Very good points on Bernie Mr. Dawson,

    But I wanted to respond to you for another reason all together.

    I’ve enjoyed your work for a while now, especially over at WRH. And I say Kudos to you for an amazing job at spreading the truth.

    but…

    There was one moment when I was dumbstruck at a comment of yours regarding a truther who wrote a book about it all, but she also mentioned that it wasn’t the same passenger jet that took off from Boston that hit the Pentagon. And for this you dismissed her as a kind of crack pot.

    I would just suggest that there are quite a few of us who have no idea what hit the Pentagon, (we’d love to see the videos!), but we doubt it was the same passenger jet that took off from Boston. Did I misinterpret something you said?

    Any thoughts sir?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Hey Rurik,

    You know I watched the video footage of the alleged airliner striking "our" pentagon, quite a few times....and, in all honesty, not once was I ever convinced in watching it, that it was struck by an airliner.....I just saw no evidence indicating this was the case....

    Did you ?

    Was there lots of crumpled, charred, fuselage at the impact sight.....I never saw any....did you ?

    As a matter of fact...I never saw the airliner flying into it.....just a split second explosion when what looked like a projectile, hit the wall.....That is all I can recall.....do you know more about it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Is there a type-o in the above article, ?

    Sanders supported the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo, which was marketed by the Clinton administration as a “humanitarian intervention”. But was there a vote on the Libya intervention in 2011? Wasn’t that an executive action by Obama? He claimed that it wasn’t a war, since he wasn’t sending soldiers and therefore did not require the assent of Congress.

    Afterwards, a group of Republican legislators wrote a letter criticizing Obama for abuse of executive power…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    You're right Laurie - there was no vote but Sanders said he supported it on humanitarian grounds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Giraldi, with his support for Sanders, has outed himself as green badger at the CIA. Funny that his liaison at Langley won’t even allow him to support the best foreign policy candidate (the loud mouth real estate developer). A sure tip off that that guy is legit. Sanders has supported neocon wars in the past and now is for arming Syrian “rebels” and regime change in Syria. Beware of all these former CIA blue badgers who somehow, after decades in the agency, have some road to Damascus epiphany (how convenient) and have become realists. Yeah, sure. I hope the money is worth it green badger (aka, greedy bastards).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Sorry to disillusion you Tony but I have had no CIA badge of any kind since 2002!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    Where are you, Jr.? Close enough to DC to join us (Phil, Geo, Ray McG., etc.) at Arlington Cemetery on June 8 for the annual remembrance of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty? Check your Jr.2 email and let Geo know.

    Here's Phil's report from last year --
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-uss-liberty-must-not-be-forgotten/

    Hey Robin! I’m not certain yet that I can, but I’m certain that I will try!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Marxism/Zionism at work. This is what happen when Marxist/Zionist gain full control over a country’s governmental structure. The only reason similar laws relating to holocaust denial are not already in force here in the US is due to the Bill Of Rights (1st amendment) which guarantees freedom of speech free of government interference, and a freedom that Marxist/Zionist are laboring night and day to effectively dismantle through the implementation of speech codes, referred to as Politically Correct Speech (PC)).

    http://www.dw.com/en/frances-far-right-jean-marie-le-pen-convicted-for-holocaust-denial/a-19168158

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Hey, CP. Just following-up on my previous comment:

    Is the email address you use here on Unz real or fictitious? If it is real, you’ll be hearing from me.
     
    Let me know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @woodNfish
    You need to step away from the conspiracy websites Carroll. The oklahoma city bombing was revenge for the mass torture and murder of 84 men women and children in Waco, TX by the federal mafia. Sandy Hook, just like the Denver theater shootings and many other mass shootings, were done by a person on psychotropic medications, and the Boston bombings were done by muslim terrorists. And yes, I know "muslim terrorist" is redundant.

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn't surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can't prove they have and you can't produce any evidence.

    Israel associated with Boston Bombing motive as well:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/04/23/neocon-driveninspired-iraq-afghanistan-wars-were-motive-for-boston-bombings/


    Israel as terrorism motivation for San Bernardino as well
    :

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/reported-politely-ignores/

    CIA’s Mike Scheuer validated yet again with terrorism motivation in following youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp


    ISIS trains 600 terrorists to attack Europe (and US) because of Israel
    :

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Laurie Calhoun
    Let us hope so! Unfortunately, being "war weary and wary" has not prevented Obama from launching countless missile strikes and spreading weapons all over the globe. Not to mention his nonstop covert ops, all of which appear to be self-sabotaging. (Arming ISIS?)

    I largely agree with your above analysis, and I am also a war voter. (What could be more important than preventing mass homicide?) Both Sanders & Trump have big economic agendas, which push war way down on the list, even if they are not doves. I do think that voters should seriously ponder whether the candidates are dreaming about new wars to wage. If they would be too busy with an ambitious domestic agenda, so much the better for everyone--both at home and abroad.

    Hillary Clinton seems pretty happy with the status quo, which suggests that, as president, she might have enough time on her hands to come up with her own version of Thatcher's Falkland Islands adventure. In any case, the very fact that she could characterize the Libya fiasco as "smart power at its best" disqualifies her in my mind. Sure, I'd love to see a female US president, but I also could and would never vote for Condoleezza Rice--or Madeleine Albright!

    The irony of Albright speaking at GU today on “the role of religion in international relations”…

    http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/events/religion-peace-and-world-affairs-the-challenges-ahead

    She’s the keynote of their “Rethinking Religion and World Affairs…Symposium”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AmericaFirstNow
    Jill Stein is still Jewish at the end of the day and like Chomsky says that the Mideast wars are all about oil when they are in fact all about israel in accord with the following Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan mentioned prior:

    The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel:


    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    To all those 'No Blood for Oil' lefties out there who listened to the likes of Chomsky and Jill Stein take a look at following NY Times article as China got most of the Iraq oil contracts (Not US):


    China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html

    Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War

    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/03/07/chomsky-acknowledges-the-neocons-as-the-dominant-force-in-pushing-for-iraq-war/

    Chomsky Confirms Neocons Pushed Iraq War Over Objections

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If war is the only consideration on which to decide whom to vote for:
    Trump may be less inclined than Clinton to initiate military adventures. However, imagine him as President sitting in the situation room with the heads of the military, intelligence, and so forth.
    Then, think about how Donald’s brain melted down in the Chris Mathews interview. The people surrounding him on a daily basis will turn his mind inside out, toast it, and give it to him for breakfast.

    Will Donald have chosen a smart pit bull for Vice President, to keep his back? Because, left on his own, Trump is a confirmed blunderer. Not a good prospect for the human race, him in charge.
    So here’s the other choices.
    Bernie can think strategically and opportunistically. Will he choose competent lieutenants, to keep the generals and spies under control? Possibly, he could.
    With Hillary, just this to consider: which is worse, catastrophic blunders, or heinous crimes?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior
    Yes, you are not defending them against the charge of carrying out operations abroad, but you ARE defending them against the charge of carrying out operations domestically by painting the possibility of such as coming from conspiracy websites which I see as a "conspiracy nut" smear job. It seems as if you think that the CIA would only carry out false-flag operations in other countries and that they would never do it domestically.

    It was what I interpreted to be your cavalier dismissal of the possibility of those events being domestic false-flag operations which was the reason for my posts about Operations CHAOS and Northwoods. I do agree with your sentiment that it is important to have proof of claims, but it seemed that Carroll's post said that they were Gladio-TYPE operations, not DEFINITELY Gladio operations. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the CIA domestic operations so I wanted to show you that although there may not be proof that the CIA carries out domestic terrorism, there is definitive proof that it is WELL within the realm of possibility and is something to seriously consider.

    Where are you, Jr.? Close enough to DC to join us (Phil, Geo, Ray McG., etc.) at Arlington Cemetery on June 8 for the annual remembrance of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty? Check your Jr.2 email and let Geo know.

    Here’s Phil’s report from last year –

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-uss-liberty-must-not-be-forgotten/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior
    Hey Robin! I'm not certain yet that I can, but I'm certain that I will try!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    here’s a “respected” Republican voice with a totally unsurprising endorsement of Clinton!!!

    Nikkei Asian Review – Richard Armitage: I’d choose Clinton over Trump
    Richard Armitage, a respected Republican voice in foreign policy who served as deputy secretary of state under former U.S. President George W. Bush, said he would vote for Democratic contender Hillary Clinton for president if the choice were between the former secretary of state and the GOP front-runner, real estate mogul Donald Trump.
    “I have nothing but disdain for Mr. Trump and what he says and the way he acts,” Armitage told The Nikkei in a recent interview……

    http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/I-d-choose-Clinton-over-Trump-Armitage

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior
    Yes, you are not defending them against the charge of carrying out operations abroad, but you ARE defending them against the charge of carrying out operations domestically by painting the possibility of such as coming from conspiracy websites which I see as a "conspiracy nut" smear job. It seems as if you think that the CIA would only carry out false-flag operations in other countries and that they would never do it domestically.

    It was what I interpreted to be your cavalier dismissal of the possibility of those events being domestic false-flag operations which was the reason for my posts about Operations CHAOS and Northwoods. I do agree with your sentiment that it is important to have proof of claims, but it seemed that Carroll's post said that they were Gladio-TYPE operations, not DEFINITELY Gladio operations. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the CIA domestic operations so I wanted to show you that although there may not be proof that the CIA carries out domestic terrorism, there is definitive proof that it is WELL within the realm of possibility and is something to seriously consider.

    Zionism, Marxism and Communism are essentially the same thing. Zionism is simply Marxism/Communism operating under a different name. Marxism, Communism/Zionism have always been international in scope, meaning that they pledge no allegiances to any nation or state and loyal to none. All have historically employed terrorism as a weapon with which to achieve regional political goals. With Zionism now in the process of using international terrorism to achieve final world domination. When it comes to terrorist attacks disguised as false flag attacks blamed on Muslim terrorist, it would be a huge mistake for anyone to assume that attacks of this nature would be banned from the US or any other country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rehmat
    Dr. Richard Falk in his latest article claims that American presidential candidates are only debate 1) Wall Street (1%), 2) the Pentagon (war), and 3) their obedience to Israel.

    I left a comment on his blog saying that there is one candidate, Jill Stein (Green Party) who doesn't give a damn to all three of them. Why? Because she is 'Self-Hating Israel-Threatening (S.H.I.T)' Jewish lady. So I agree with Mr. Giraldi that voting for her wouldn't help Americans to free themselves from the 1% slave masters.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/24/jill-stein-obama-romney-are-israels-slaves/

    Jill Stein is still Jewish at the end of the day and like Chomsky says that the Mideast wars are all about oil when they are in fact all about israel in accord with the following Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan mentioned prior:

    The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    To all those ‘No Blood for Oil’ lefties out there who listened to the likes of Chomsky and Jill Stein take a look at following NY Times article as China got most of the Iraq oil contracts (Not US):

    China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    Chomsky Acknowledges the Neocons as the Dominant Force in Pushing for Iraq War

    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/03/07/chomsky-acknowledges-the-neocons-as-the-dominant-force-in-pushing-for-iraq-war/


    Chomsky Confirms Neocons Pushed Iraq War Over Objections


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGqdcKLmOXs]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AmericaFirstNow
    John McCain's charity at Arizona State University received 1 million from government of Saudi Arabia (assume Saudis happy with McCain pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan in support of Syrian rebels vs Assad in Syria):


    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/04/05/john-mccains-charity-at-arizona-state-university-accepted-1-million-from-saudi-government/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AmericaFirstNow
    Not only Putin & Russia but also the UK Parliament vote against joining US in striking Syria as Obama was pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Syria and basically still is in supporting 'moderate rebels' (some of whom joined Al Nusra and ISIS too) to oust Assad for Israel:

    Israel Lobby pushing for US action against Syrian government:


    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    ISIS result of Israeli Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq & Syria
    :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/



    CIA's Mike Scheuer on Israel & Iraq war as terrorism motivation
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    ISIS trains 600 terrorists to attack Europe (and US) b/c of Israel
    :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48_ZeiK5gqU

    Hatred of Israel as San Bernardino terrorism motivation as well
    :

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/reported-politely-ignores/

    Petraeus & CENTCOM also warned of Israel threat to US:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/07/general-petraeus-israel-emails

    High Cost of Subservience to Israel
    (by Paul Findley):

    http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0064805.html

    CIA's Mike Scheuer told Congress to Dump Israel
    :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl1JnQoIWQ

    Pandering Congress listens to Israel 1st AIPAC & Neocons instead:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98

    Scroll to Founding Father George Washington's 'Farewell Address' warning at bottom of http://astandforjustice.org if interested further!

    John McCain’s charity at Arizona State University received 1 million from government of Saudi Arabia (assume Saudis happy with McCain pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan in support of Syrian rebels vs Assad in Syria):

    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/04/05/john-mccains-charity-at-arizona-state-university-accepted-1-million-from-saudi-government/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    Israeli military supporting Syrian rebels as well:


    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/03/30/israeli-military-admits-to-supporting-al-qaeda-and-isis-in-syria/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As Pat Buchanan points out in his recent article here at Unz, the Trump campaign has demonstrated that the neoconservative policies – open borders, free trade, and nation building – have been discredited. Conversely, it has also shown that more and more Americans are eager to re-embrace putting America First – i.e., “patriotism (preserving and protecting the unique character of the nation and people), economic nationalism, staying out of other nation’s wars.”

    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/what-trump-has-wrought/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SolontoCroesus
    Patrick Armstrong is a participant on Pat Lang's blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

    In a front-page article, Armstrong, a military man, traced military planning by the Russians from the WWII era to Cold War to the post-Cold War era to the present. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/04/russia-prepares-for-a-big-war-the-significance-of-a-tank-army.html

    Armstrong linked a video in which David Glantz, a scholar of Russian military activity, told an audience at the US Army War College that "Russians do not wage war emotionally, they plan methodically and scientifically, and they learn from their mistakes."

    Thus, Armstrong says that Russia's expectations -- whether a "small war" or a "big war" are signaled by the men and materiel it positions.


    In short, if you stop at independent brigades, you are telling the world that you expect, and are planning for, relatively small wars. If you go to divisions you are expecting something larger and if you construct a corps (or army in Russian terminology) you are telling the world that you are preparing for a big war.

    And so, an observer who knows how armies are put together, can tell a lot about what kind of war a country expects by understanding how it has put its "tent groups" together.
     

    and

    In short, by the turn of the century, in their published doctrine, in everything they told us in meetings, in deployments and in their formation structures the Russians were showing us they had no offensive designs against NATO and they expected no attacks from NATO. The south was where they saw danger. . . .

    All this time the Russians told us that that NATO’s relentless expansion, ever closer, was a danger (опасность) although they stopped short of calling it, as they did terrorism, a threat (угроза); “dangers” you watch; “threats” you must respond to. NATO of course didn’t listen, arrogantly assuming NATO expansion was doing Russia a favour and was an entitlement of the “exceptional nation” and its allies.
     

    In an exceptionalist dance in which NATO reserved to itself the right to step on its partner's toes and refused to recognize the incremental signals of distress:

    [Russia] planned for small wars, but NATO kept expanding; they argued, but NATO kept expanding; they protested, but NATO kept expanding. They took no action for years.

    Well, they have now: the 1st Guards Tank Army is being re-created. . . .

    The 1st Guards Tank Army will be stationed in the Western Military District to defend Russia against NATO. . . .

    In short, Russia has finally come to the conclusion that NATO's aggression means it has to prepare for a big war.
     

    Russia is preparing for a big war.

    In other words, while Giraldi's keen and concise assessment of the most hawkish of war hawks among US candidates is on-target and appreciated; and his determination and counsel to vote for the candidate least likely to go to war are endorsed; the reality is, in the USA/Anglo zionist sphere, war is a system, a spiral already set in motion. The new president, whoever he or (quod absit) she may be, will be little more than the final button-pusher.

    Does Trump have what it takes to refuse to allow his hand to be forced? Even Obama was able to summon some resistance, when he walked back from the Syria red line.

    But Obama had support from Lavrov and Putin, and the British Parliament, on that courageous act.

    As Armstrong noted, Russia is in a dramatically different posture today: Russia is not the intermediary, it is the target of the war spiral.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior
    Yes, you are not defending them against the charge of carrying out operations abroad, but you ARE defending them against the charge of carrying out operations domestically by painting the possibility of such as coming from conspiracy websites which I see as a "conspiracy nut" smear job. It seems as if you think that the CIA would only carry out false-flag operations in other countries and that they would never do it domestically.

    It was what I interpreted to be your cavalier dismissal of the possibility of those events being domestic false-flag operations which was the reason for my posts about Operations CHAOS and Northwoods. I do agree with your sentiment that it is important to have proof of claims, but it seemed that Carroll's post said that they were Gladio-TYPE operations, not DEFINITELY Gladio operations. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the CIA domestic operations so I wanted to show you that although there may not be proof that the CIA carries out domestic terrorism, there is definitive proof that it is WELL within the realm of possibility and is something to seriously consider.

    Hey, Jr. Have you had a chance to check your new email inbox, yet?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @woodNfish
    As I wrote; I am not defending them. The CIA also overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in early 50's and installed the Shah. It would not surprise me if the CIA intentionally gave Bush false information to get him to invade Afghanistan so they could take over control of the opium trade.

    Yes, you are not defending them against the charge of carrying out operations abroad, but you ARE defending them against the charge of carrying out operations domestically by painting the possibility of such as coming from conspiracy websites which I see as a “conspiracy nut” smear job. It seems as if you think that the CIA would only carry out false-flag operations in other countries and that they would never do it domestically.

    It was what I interpreted to be your cavalier dismissal of the possibility of those events being domestic false-flag operations which was the reason for my posts about Operations CHAOS and Northwoods. I do agree with your sentiment that it is important to have proof of claims, but it seemed that Carroll’s post said that they were Gladio-TYPE operations, not DEFINITELY Gladio operations. I wasn’t sure if you were aware of the CIA domestic operations so I wanted to show you that although there may not be proof that the CIA carries out domestic terrorism, there is definitive proof that it is WELL within the realm of possibility and is something to seriously consider.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62
    Hey, Jr. Have you had a chance to check your new email inbox, yet?
    , @Carroll Price
    Zionism, Marxism and Communism are essentially the same thing. Zionism is simply Marxism/Communism operating under a different name. Marxism, Communism/Zionism have always been international in scope, meaning that they pledge no allegiances to any nation or state and loyal to none. All have historically employed terrorism as a weapon with which to achieve regional political goals. With Zionism now in the process of using international terrorism to achieve final world domination. When it comes to terrorist attacks disguised as false flag attacks blamed on Muslim terrorist, it would be a huge mistake for anyone to assume that attacks of this nature would be banned from the US or any other country.
    , @RobinG
    Where are you, Jr.? Close enough to DC to join us (Phil, Geo, Ray McG., etc.) at Arlington Cemetery on June 8 for the annual remembrance of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty? Check your Jr.2 email and let Geo know.

    Here's Phil's report from last year --
    http://www.unz.com/article/the-uss-liberty-must-not-be-forgotten/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AmericaFirstNow
    Not correct! The primary motivation for 9/11 and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was US support for Israel as one can simply read page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report and look up 'Israel as a terrorists' motivation' in the index of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book as I mentioned to CIA's Mike Scheuer in following youtube:

    9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    Can also view see my exchange with Lee Hamilton in following youtube (with over half a million views) which was used in 'valentino's Ghost' film:

    What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn't!:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1

    Latest on 'Valentino's Ghost' film which screened to standing ovations at Venice Film Festival (world's oldest and most prestigious) and on PBS as well can be found in comments at bottom of following URL if interested further:

    'Valentino's Ghost' makes theatrical debut in Los Angeles and New York
    :


    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/05/15/valentinos-ghost-film-makes-its-us-theatrical-debut-in-los-angeles-and-nyc/

    Scroll to email exchange between 'Valentino's Ghost' director Michael Singh and PBS 'Frontline' executive producer David Fanning about Jewish donors at following URL if interested further:

    'Valentino's Ghost' makes comeback after 4 years of suppression:



    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/valentinos-comeback-suppression/omeback-suppression/

    The Mondoweiss.net link about ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ in prior post doesn’t go through but following one should:

    ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ makes comeback after 4 years of suppression:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/valentinos-comeback-suppression/

    Latest about ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ film in comments at bottom of following URL if interested further:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/05/15/valentinos-ghost-film-makes-its-us-theatrical-debut-in-los-angeles-and-nyc/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior
    I also think that it is important to note that there IS also proof that it is not above certain elements in our government to have the CIA carry out false-flags operations on American Citizens by committing acts of domestic terrorism, such as the proposed Operation Northwoods which was a policy that was approved by the highest levels of the Pentagon.

    "Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    "Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

    And lest you think that these are some "ravings" from conspiracy websites, here is an article on it from ABC news on May 1, 2001.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Laurie Calhoun
    Sanders voted and spoke out vehemently against both wars on Iraq, in 1991 and in 2003. A rarity among US politicians...

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

    Not correct! The primary motivation for 9/11 and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was US support for Israel as one can simply read page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report and look up ‘Israel as a terrorists’ motivation’ in the index of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book as I mentioned to CIA’s Mike Scheuer in following youtube:

    9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    Can also view see my exchange with Lee Hamilton in following youtube (with over half a million views) which was used in ‘valentino’s Ghost’ film:

    What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn’t!:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1

    Latest on ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ film which screened to standing ovations at Venice Film Festival (world’s oldest and most prestigious) and on PBS as well can be found in comments at bottom of following URL if interested further:

    ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ makes theatrical debut in Los Angeles and New York
    :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/05/15/valentinos-ghost-film-makes-its-us-theatrical-debut-in-los-angeles-and-nyc/

    Scroll to email exchange between ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ director Michael Singh and PBS ‘Frontline’ executive producer David Fanning about Jewish donors at following URL if interested further:

    ‘Valentino’s Ghost’ makes comeback after 4 years of suppression:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/valentinos-comeback-suppression/omeback-suppression/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    The Mondoweiss.net link about 'Valentino's Ghost' in prior post doesn't go through but following one should:

    'Valentino's Ghost' makes comeback after 4 years of suppression:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/valentinos-comeback-suppression/

    Latest about 'Valentino's Ghost' film in comments at bottom of following URL if interested further:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/05/15/valentinos-ghost-film-makes-its-us-theatrical-debut-in-los-angeles-and-nyc/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Philip Giraldi
    I think both you and Robin are correct - even at the time there was a sense that Desert Storm had been set up under somewhat mysterious circumstances, to include the April Glaspie missteps with Saddam and the Kuwait directed false narrative but I think you are closer to the real objective in your citation of "Vietnam syndrome." I was in CIA at the time and there was a palpable sense within the national security/defense community that a large scale, successful war was needed to close the book on Vietnam. It turned out to be Saddam but it could just as easily been Iran or some other designated victim. One might say that we are now experiencing the "Iraq syndrome" as an inhibitor on starting a new war. If so, long may it prevail!

    With respect, Phil and Laura Calhoun, Viet Nam syndrome surely played a large role, but George H W Bush’s biographer researched Bush’s archives to examine the decision-making process. Jeff Engel edited Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War, , a collection of essays on that topic.

    Engel discussed his book at Texas A & M in 2013. He emphasized that Bush and his team were acting in the wake of the fall of the Berlin wall; USA was now the world’s sole superpower, unrestrained by a counterbalancing nuclear power.

    In that context, Bush fear the absence of an enemy, because the existence of an enemy — Communist Russia — had been the bond that united the US and its allies. Bush 41 feared that apathy would break that bond. As Lawrence Eagleburger, part of Bush’s decision-making team, told the National Security Council:

    “This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson.” END QUOTE.

    This argument persuaded Bush, who endorsed the fateful decision from which Washington’ subsequent entanglements in the Middle East derived.

    Eagleburger amplified his comment:

    “We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.

    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.

    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. “

    Brent Scowcroft mirrored Eagleburger’s thinking.

    Jeff Engel summed up the Bush team’s 1990-91 decision to invade Iraq in this way:

    The key question I think is WHY? Why did Bush go against decades of American policy, injecting force into a region like never done before? . . .

    Bush recognized that the end of the Cold War eliminated the most stable aspects of the international system [that had been in place since] 1945 . . .

    I argue that Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion. . .

    Bush above all else was a man enamored by international stability.

    During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. . . .

    Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?

    He said, and I quote: “Is the Cold War the same? I mean is it raging like before in the times of the Berlin Blockade? Absolutely not. Things have moved dramatically. But If I signal to you that there’s no Cold War then it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War an opportunity as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .

    [Bush said], Quote: “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence.” End quote. ”

    This reference of George H W Bush’s to the “promise to His generation as their reward for service in World War II” is one of the major reasons I bang away at deconstructing holocaustism and examining the full context of US involvement — and war crimes — in World War II. I believe Bush 41 relied upon a romanticized and highly propagandized version of that catastrophic war.

    Because if the USA fought that war under false premises, as it did; and with far less than noble means, as it did; then the foundation of G H W Bush’s construct of an international system and a New World Order, in 1945 as in 1991 and until today, is cracked and fatally flawed.

    The USA cannot be fixed, not by Trump or anyone else, unless and until it trues up its foundation.

    Denying Deconstructing the holocaust is a moral imperative.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Laurie Calhoun
    Sanders voted and spoke out vehemently against both wars on Iraq, in 1991 and in 2003. A rarity among US politicians...

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

    the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq.

    RobinG highlighted the crucial passage that I agree with, but on further thought, the “current quagmire” did not begin with the 1991 war but with Israel’s attack on Osirik, Iraq’s nuclear facility, in 1981.
    Until that attack, Saddam’s nuclear program was largely a feint to ward off Iran, with whom Iraq was at war, a war incited by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his/US pursuit of a way to punish Iran for discontinuing its role as US buttress against Communism in the region consequent to the overthrow of Reza Shah Pahlavi.

    Pahlavi had been placed in power subsequent to US-British overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953.

    Mossadeq was overthrown because Eisenhower was made to fear that Iran would “go Communist.”

    But the real conundrum is why, in 1933, when Bolshevism was raging in numerous European states and Stalin and his henchmen were killing Russians and Ukrainians by the millions — why, in that context did Roosevelt go behind the backs of his own State Department, assigning Henry Morgenthau to negotiate and ally the USA with Stalin.

    And why did Roosevelt collude with his Treasury Secretary, that same Henry Morgenthau, to funnel US taxpayer dollars to support Stalin and Communism, with whom the US subsequently engaged in a 50-year long Cold War that cost another several million lives.

    It really does go back to the full-blown emergence of zionism and the Jewish state in Palestine.

    “Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.”– John Sheehan, SJ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Junior

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn’t surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can’t prove they have and you can’t produce any evidence.
     
    While there is no proof of domestic terrorism by the CIA, mainly because they aren't a bunch of ham-handed idiots like the State Department which has apparently taken over espionage by using diplomats to carry it out and leaving evidence all over the place, I think that it is important to note that there IS however proof that the CIA carries out domestic operations in the US like Operation CHAOS.

    Operation Chaos was developed in 1967, under CIA director Richard Helms and Richard Ober, head of the Special Operations Group (CI/SOG) in the CIA's counterintelligence branch. One motivating factor for the development of Chaos was the revelations of CIA funding and control of the National Student Association (NSA) that appeared in Ramparts magazine in 1967, and a 1966 Ramparts story about how the CIA used the University of Michigan as a cover to train Vietnamese police. Stanley K. Sheinbaum, who had unwittingly worked for the CIA as a University of Michigan professor, coauthored the 1966 Ramparts article with Robert Scheer. This sent the CIA on the warpath against Ramparts. Leaks were becoming a huge problem and MH Chaos was organized to prevent any future leaks about CIA operations. The other purpose of Chaos was to coordinate counterintelligence and covert action projects of the FBI, IRS, all branches of the US Armed Forces, and major metropolitan police departments' intelligence units into one clearinghouse for data on the political activity of Americans.

    Just as the Phoenix program was deemed necessary because of the failure to "neutralize" civilian support for the Vietcong, Chaos grew out of the failure of the FBI's Cointelpro and the CIA's other domestic programs run out of their Office of Security, Project Merrimac and Resistance to neutralize growing domestic dissent. Prior to Chaos, the CIA's Merrimac and Resistance programs had infiltrated groups such as Women Strike for Peace (WSP), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), among others, ostensibly to prevent attacks on CIA personnel or installations.
     

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29001-memories-of-fire-remembering-the-watts-rebellion-operation-chaos-and-the-infectious-logic-of-national-security

    As I wrote; I am not defending them. The CIA also overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in early 50′s and installed the Shah. It would not surprise me if the CIA intentionally gave Bush false information to get him to invade Afghanistan so they could take over control of the opium trade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior
    Yes, you are not defending them against the charge of carrying out operations abroad, but you ARE defending them against the charge of carrying out operations domestically by painting the possibility of such as coming from conspiracy websites which I see as a "conspiracy nut" smear job. It seems as if you think that the CIA would only carry out false-flag operations in other countries and that they would never do it domestically.

    It was what I interpreted to be your cavalier dismissal of the possibility of those events being domestic false-flag operations which was the reason for my posts about Operations CHAOS and Northwoods. I do agree with your sentiment that it is important to have proof of claims, but it seemed that Carroll's post said that they were Gladio-TYPE operations, not DEFINITELY Gladio operations. I wasn't sure if you were aware of the CIA domestic operations so I wanted to show you that although there may not be proof that the CIA carries out domestic terrorism, there is definitive proof that it is WELL within the realm of possibility and is something to seriously consider.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @woodNfish
    You need to step away from the conspiracy websites Carroll. The oklahoma city bombing was revenge for the mass torture and murder of 84 men women and children in Waco, TX by the federal mafia. Sandy Hook, just like the Denver theater shootings and many other mass shootings, were done by a person on psychotropic medications, and the Boston bombings were done by muslim terrorists. And yes, I know "muslim terrorist" is redundant.

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn't surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can't prove they have and you can't produce any evidence.

    I also think that it is important to note that there IS also proof that it is not above certain elements in our government to have the CIA carry out false-flags operations on American Citizens by committing acts of domestic terrorism, such as the proposed Operation Northwoods which was a policy that was approved by the highest levels of the Pentagon.

    “Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    “Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

    And lest you think that these are some “ravings” from conspiracy websites, here is an article on it from ABC news on May 1, 2001.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Philip Giraldi
    I think both you and Robin are correct - even at the time there was a sense that Desert Storm had been set up under somewhat mysterious circumstances, to include the April Glaspie missteps with Saddam and the Kuwait directed false narrative but I think you are closer to the real objective in your citation of "Vietnam syndrome." I was in CIA at the time and there was a palpable sense within the national security/defense community that a large scale, successful war was needed to close the book on Vietnam. It turned out to be Saddam but it could just as easily been Iran or some other designated victim. One might say that we are now experiencing the "Iraq syndrome" as an inhibitor on starting a new war. If so, long may it prevail!

    Let us hope so! Unfortunately, being “war weary and wary” has not prevented Obama from launching countless missile strikes and spreading weapons all over the globe. Not to mention his nonstop covert ops, all of which appear to be self-sabotaging. (Arming ISIS?)

    I largely agree with your above analysis, and I am also a war voter. (What could be more important than preventing mass homicide?) Both Sanders & Trump have big economic agendas, which push war way down on the list, even if they are not doves. I do think that voters should seriously ponder whether the candidates are dreaming about new wars to wage. If they would be too busy with an ambitious domestic agenda, so much the better for everyone–both at home and abroad.

    Hillary Clinton seems pretty happy with the status quo, which suggests that, as president, she might have enough time on her hands to come up with her own version of Thatcher’s Falkland Islands adventure. In any case, the very fact that she could characterize the Libya fiasco as “smart power at its best” disqualifies her in my mind. Sure, I’d love to see a female US president, but I also could and would never vote for Condoleezza Rice–or Madeleine Albright!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    The irony of Albright speaking at GU today on "the role of religion in international relations"...
    http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/events/religion-peace-and-world-affairs-the-challenges-ahead

    She's the keynote of their "Rethinking Religion and World Affairs...Symposium"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    You're giving Obama credit where no credit is due. Vladimir Putin walked him back from his red line in Syria.

    Not only Putin & Russia but also the UK Parliament vote against joining US in striking Syria as Obama was pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Syria and basically still is in supporting ‘moderate rebels’ (some of whom joined Al Nusra and ISIS too) to oust Assad for Israel:

    Israel Lobby pushing for US action against Syrian government:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/


    ISIS result of Israeli Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq & Syria
    :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    [MORE]


    CIA’s Mike Scheuer on Israel & Iraq war as terrorism motivation
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp


    ISIS trains 600 terrorists to attack Europe (and US) b/c of Israel
    :


    Hatred of Israel as San Bernardino terrorism motivation as well
    :

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/reported-politely-ignores/

    Petraeus & CENTCOM also warned of Israel threat to US:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/07/general-petraeus-israel-emails


    High Cost of Subservience to Israel
    (by Paul Findley):

    http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0064805.html


    CIA’s Mike Scheuer told Congress to Dump Israel
    :

    Pandering Congress listens to Israel 1st AIPAC & Neocons instead:

    Scroll to Founding Father George Washington’s ‘Farewell Address’ warning at bottom of http://astandforjustice.org if interested further!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    John McCain's charity at Arizona State University received 1 million from government of Saudi Arabia (assume Saudis happy with McCain pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan in support of Syrian rebels vs Assad in Syria):


    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/04/05/john-mccains-charity-at-arizona-state-university-accepted-1-million-from-saudi-government/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There is a certain perverted logic to lesser evilism: it is better to get raped than to get raped and beaten up. But this kind of thinking is what keeps us trapped in the corrupt two-party system voting for candidates who are sure to screw us, rather than finding someone who won’t.

    Anyone who supports Israel or serves its fifth column in the West is a traitor to his country and humanity. You should not under any circumstances vote for someone who openly expresses support for Israel, “lesser-evilism” be damned. At the end of the day trying to guess which one of the candidates we are handed is the least dangerous is an exercise in futility; they all serve the same interests. If you select from a group of traitors you will get a traitor every time. The correct response is to never vote for a traitor. Either don’t vote at all or write in the name of someone you think is worthy. If everyone did this, we would not end up with warmongering ziofascists running and ruining our country.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Laurie Calhoun
    I find the nearly total amnesia about the Gulf War and the insistence on blaming only the George W Bush administration for the current situation in the Middle East very baffling. Had there been no war on Iraq in 1991, there would never have been a 9/11.

    It all started with George H. W. Bush, who refused to negotiate or seek a diplomatic solution to the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait for the simple reason that he wanted to wage a war. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush Sr even bragged about having "kicked Vietnam syndrome", as though it were somehow shameful to be hesitant to fight disastrous wars! The rest is history.

    Ours is a seriously truth-challenged culture, which explains the weak slate of US candidates, among other things:

    https://thedroneage.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/war-on-terror-war-on-truth/

    I think both you and Robin are correct – even at the time there was a sense that Desert Storm had been set up under somewhat mysterious circumstances, to include the April Glaspie missteps with Saddam and the Kuwait directed false narrative but I think you are closer to the real objective in your citation of “Vietnam syndrome.” I was in CIA at the time and there was a palpable sense within the national security/defense community that a large scale, successful war was needed to close the book on Vietnam. It turned out to be Saddam but it could just as easily been Iran or some other designated victim. One might say that we are now experiencing the “Iraq syndrome” as an inhibitor on starting a new war. If so, long may it prevail!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laurie Calhoun
    Let us hope so! Unfortunately, being "war weary and wary" has not prevented Obama from launching countless missile strikes and spreading weapons all over the globe. Not to mention his nonstop covert ops, all of which appear to be self-sabotaging. (Arming ISIS?)

    I largely agree with your above analysis, and I am also a war voter. (What could be more important than preventing mass homicide?) Both Sanders & Trump have big economic agendas, which push war way down on the list, even if they are not doves. I do think that voters should seriously ponder whether the candidates are dreaming about new wars to wage. If they would be too busy with an ambitious domestic agenda, so much the better for everyone--both at home and abroad.

    Hillary Clinton seems pretty happy with the status quo, which suggests that, as president, she might have enough time on her hands to come up with her own version of Thatcher's Falkland Islands adventure. In any case, the very fact that she could characterize the Libya fiasco as "smart power at its best" disqualifies her in my mind. Sure, I'd love to see a female US president, but I also could and would never vote for Condoleezza Rice--or Madeleine Albright!
    , @SolontoCroesus
    With respect, Phil and Laura Calhoun, Viet Nam syndrome surely played a large role, but George H W Bush's biographer researched Bush's archives to examine the decision-making process. Jeff Engel edited Into the Desert: Reflections on the Gulf War, , a collection of essays on that topic.

    Engel discussed his book at Texas A & M in 2013. He emphasized that Bush and his team were acting in the wake of the fall of the Berlin wall; USA was now the world's sole superpower, unrestrained by a counterbalancing nuclear power.

    In that context, Bush fear the absence of an enemy, because the existence of an enemy -- Communist Russia -- had been the bond that united the US and its allies. Bush 41 feared that apathy would break that bond. As Lawrence Eagleburger, part of Bush's decision-making team, told the National Security Council:


    "This is the first test of a post-war system. As a bipolar world is relaxed it permits this, perhaps giving more flexibility because people may not be worried about the involvement of the super powers. If Saddam Hussein succeeds others may try the same thing and it would be a bad lesson." END QUOTE.

    This argument persuaded Bush, who endorsed the fateful decision from which Washington’ subsequent entanglements in the Middle East derived.
     

    Eagleburger amplified his comment:

    "We should be frank about what moved them to act. It was NOT the argument that Kuwaiti independence mattered much at all.

    Neither was it that Hussein’s particular brand of evil and tyranny required an American response.

    Nor was Bush persuaded that Iraq’s aggression carried immediate concerns, or that Iraq might someday turn its oil wealth into dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

    Each of these reasons, in time, influenced Bush’s thoughts, his actions and his statements in the months to come.
    None, however, not freedom, evil, human rights, democracy or WMDs affected his thinking in those first fateful days of August.
    Bush was instead, and this is important, Bush was instead persuaded by the growing realization that he stood at a pivot moment in the course of history. "
     

    Brent Scowcroft mirrored Eagleburger's thinking.

    Jeff Engel summed up the Bush team's 1990-91 decision to invade Iraq in this way:


    The key question I think is WHY? Why did Bush go against decades of American policy, injecting force into a region like never done before? . . .

    Bush recognized that the end of the Cold War eliminated the most stable aspects of the international system [that had been in place since] 1945 . . .

    I argue that Bush took the dramatic step into the Gulf Crisis because he saw it as a bridge to a better world. His New World Order, a phrase unveiled in response to Hussein’s invasion. . .

    Bush above all else was a man enamored by international stability.


    During the Spring and Summer of 1990 Bush told Global leaders that their alliance required an enemy to survive. . . .

    Bush even lost his temper when pushed by reporters to declare the Cold War over because he simply did not know the answer to the next obvious and fundamental question: What Came Next?

    He said, and I quote: "Is the Cold War the same? I mean is it raging like before in the times of the Berlin Blockade? Absolutely not. Things have moved dramatically. But If I signal to you that there's no Cold War then it’s What are you doing with those troops in Europe? I mean, come on!” END QUOTE

    Bush saw in the Gulf War an opportunity as well as in invasion, a point that I will make by way of conclusion. .. He saw within it a chance to demonstrate that Washington would continue to lead. Leading it in particular towards the kind of world promised to His generation as their reward for service in World War II. . . .

    [Bush said], Quote: “The prospect of a global peace continues to depend on an American forward presence." End quote. "
     

    This reference of George H W Bush's to the "promise to His generation as their reward for service in World War II" is one of the major reasons I bang away at deconstructing holocaustism and examining the full context of US involvement -- and war crimes -- in World War II. I believe Bush 41 relied upon a romanticized and highly propagandized version of that catastrophic war.

    Because if the USA fought that war under false premises, as it did; and with far less than noble means, as it did; then the foundation of G H W Bush's construct of an international system and a New World Order, in 1945 as in 1991 and until today, is cracked and fatally flawed.

    The USA cannot be fixed, not by Trump or anyone else, unless and until it trues up its foundation.

    Denying Deconstructing the holocaust is a moral imperative.

    , @alexander
    Good points, Phil,

    and also to Laurie and Robin.

    I think one can make an argument that Saddam may have been mouse trapped into invading Kuwait in 1990. That is fair enough.

    But lets be clear about this.......he did, in fact, make the choice to invade Kuwait.

    Which is REAL history.....not fraud.

    Like the anthrax scare, eleven years later...which was a true defrauding of the American people.

    There is a difference, and in my book, its a big one.

    I think everyone should also recognize that Saddam was given an opportunity to withdraw his forces and leave in 1991.

    As a matter of fact, Ambassador Joe Wilson, the self same individual who pulled back the curtain on the Neocon Niger "yellow cake" forgery in 2002, was also credited with delivering the message to Saddam, personally, in 1991.

    There is a huge difference in my mind between engaging a state that has initiated war of aggression in invaded another, which Iraq did in fact do, in 1990, and the US initiating war of aggression in invading another, which we did, tragically, in 2003.

    In the first instance, 1991, we were acting as the worlds policeman, upholding the law AGAINST transgressions.

    In 2003, we BROKE the law, and became the transgressor.

    We became the very "evil" we should all be standing against.

    I kinda disagree with you folks,on the thread that it was all one large continuum, of the same belligerence behavior.

    As a matter of fact, Bush I made the argument NOT to continue in 1991, and take out Saddam,(beyond the mission of removing him from Kuwait and degrading his military), because it would destabilize the entire region and lead to a civil war.

    Which is precisely what happened when we launched OUR illegal invasion ten years later.

    I believe 1991 Operation Desert Storm, has much more in common with Putin's recent incursions in Syria, against ISIS, in terms of initiating a principled and legal response to aggression, than the catastrophic 2003 invasion, which was all Neocon fraud and aggression from the get go.

    Our government has been transformed , by the 9-11 Neocon "coup", into a sinister, malevolent entity.... a tragic and criminal enterprise...that has utter disdain for the truth... and no respect for the rule of law or the justice it is supposed to serve.

    How very sad this is the case...... but it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    YES, & THANK YOU FOR REMINDING PEOPLE.......................

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.
     
    The Gulf War of 1991 was also an orchestrated job, with legitimate complaint of Iraq against Kuwait over disputed oil reserves - ignored by the UN. Then duplicitous enticement of Saddam into Kuwait by US, and fabricated "incubator babies" false flag, etc., to incite US public to support war.

    Next, Clinton's murderous sanctions, enshrined by Madeleine Albright's evil callousness. September 11, 2001, followed a decade of overt US aggression, plus the thorns of US bases in the Saudis' side.

    Even writers who must surely know better begin their Iraq narratives in 2003, just like they start the Israel/Palestine clock in 1967. What gives?

    I find the nearly total amnesia about the Gulf War and the insistence on blaming only the George W Bush administration for the current situation in the Middle East very baffling. Had there been no war on Iraq in 1991, there would never have been a 9/11.

    It all started with George H. W. Bush, who refused to negotiate or seek a diplomatic solution to the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait for the simple reason that he wanted to wage a war. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush Sr even bragged about having “kicked Vietnam syndrome”, as though it were somehow shameful to be hesitant to fight disastrous wars! The rest is history.

    Ours is a seriously truth-challenged culture, which explains the weak slate of US candidates, among other things:

    https://thedroneage.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/war-on-terror-war-on-truth/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    I think both you and Robin are correct - even at the time there was a sense that Desert Storm had been set up under somewhat mysterious circumstances, to include the April Glaspie missteps with Saddam and the Kuwait directed false narrative but I think you are closer to the real objective in your citation of "Vietnam syndrome." I was in CIA at the time and there was a palpable sense within the national security/defense community that a large scale, successful war was needed to close the book on Vietnam. It turned out to be Saddam but it could just as easily been Iran or some other designated victim. One might say that we are now experiencing the "Iraq syndrome" as an inhibitor on starting a new war. If so, long may it prevail!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Laurie Calhoun
    Sanders voted and spoke out vehemently against both wars on Iraq, in 1991 and in 2003. A rarity among US politicians...

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

    Wrong. Look at the evidence. The four attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that soon followed, were obvious false-flag attacks carried out for the purpose of justifying permanent wars financed by American tax payers and fought by American soldiers against Israel’s perceived enemies in the middle east.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Laurie Calhoun
    Sanders voted and spoke out vehemently against both wars on Iraq, in 1991 and in 2003. A rarity among US politicians...

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

    YES, & THANK YOU FOR REMINDING PEOPLE…………………..

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

    The Gulf War of 1991 was also an orchestrated job, with legitimate complaint of Iraq against Kuwait over disputed oil reserves – ignored by the UN. Then duplicitous enticement of Saddam into Kuwait by US, and fabricated “incubator babies” false flag, etc., to incite US public to support war.

    Next, Clinton’s murderous sanctions, enshrined by Madeleine Albright’s evil callousness. September 11, 2001, followed a decade of overt US aggression, plus the thorns of US bases in the Saudis’ side.

    Even writers who must surely know better begin their Iraq narratives in 2003, just like they start the Israel/Palestine clock in 1967. What gives?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Laurie Calhoun
    I find the nearly total amnesia about the Gulf War and the insistence on blaming only the George W Bush administration for the current situation in the Middle East very baffling. Had there been no war on Iraq in 1991, there would never have been a 9/11.

    It all started with George H. W. Bush, who refused to negotiate or seek a diplomatic solution to the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait for the simple reason that he wanted to wage a war. After Operation Desert Storm, Bush Sr even bragged about having "kicked Vietnam syndrome", as though it were somehow shameful to be hesitant to fight disastrous wars! The rest is history.

    Ours is a seriously truth-challenged culture, which explains the weak slate of US candidates, among other things:

    https://thedroneage.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/war-on-terror-war-on-truth/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @woodNfish
    You need to step away from the conspiracy websites Carroll. The oklahoma city bombing was revenge for the mass torture and murder of 84 men women and children in Waco, TX by the federal mafia. Sandy Hook, just like the Denver theater shootings and many other mass shootings, were done by a person on psychotropic medications, and the Boston bombings were done by muslim terrorists. And yes, I know "muslim terrorist" is redundant.

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn't surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can't prove they have and you can't produce any evidence.

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn’t surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can’t prove they have and you can’t produce any evidence.

    While there is no proof of domestic terrorism by the CIA, mainly because they aren’t a bunch of ham-handed idiots like the State Department which has apparently taken over espionage by using diplomats to carry it out and leaving evidence all over the place, I think that it is important to note that there IS however proof that the CIA carries out domestic operations in the US like Operation CHAOS.

    Operation Chaos was developed in 1967, under CIA director Richard Helms and Richard Ober, head of the Special Operations Group (CI/SOG) in the CIA’s counterintelligence branch. One motivating factor for the development of Chaos was the revelations of CIA funding and control of the National Student Association (NSA) that appeared in Ramparts magazine in 1967, and a 1966 Ramparts story about how the CIA used the University of Michigan as a cover to train Vietnamese police. Stanley K. Sheinbaum, who had unwittingly worked for the CIA as a University of Michigan professor, coauthored the 1966 Ramparts article with Robert Scheer. This sent the CIA on the warpath against Ramparts. Leaks were becoming a huge problem and MH Chaos was organized to prevent any future leaks about CIA operations. The other purpose of Chaos was to coordinate counterintelligence and covert action projects of the FBI, IRS, all branches of the US Armed Forces, and major metropolitan police departments’ intelligence units into one clearinghouse for data on the political activity of Americans.

    Just as the Phoenix program was deemed necessary because of the failure to “neutralize” civilian support for the Vietcong, Chaos grew out of the failure of the FBI’s Cointelpro and the CIA’s other domestic programs run out of their Office of Security, Project Merrimac and Resistance to neutralize growing domestic dissent. Prior to Chaos, the CIA’s Merrimac and Resistance programs had infiltrated groups such as Women Strike for Peace (WSP), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), among others, ostensibly to prevent attacks on CIA personnel or installations.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29001-memories-of-fire-remembering-the-watts-rebellion-operation-chaos-and-the-infectious-logic-of-national-security

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    As I wrote; I am not defending them. The CIA also overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in early 50's and installed the Shah. It would not surprise me if the CIA intentionally gave Bush false information to get him to invade Afghanistan so they could take over control of the opium trade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kiza
    As a non-American, I strongly disagree with Giraldi on Sanders. That character has never seen a war he did not like - which one did he vote against, could Giraldi enlighten us? The rest of this article is depressingly true, especially the ending - (only) God can save America. Cruz is a Rapturist and probably even more dangerous than the mad war bitch Clinton.

    A couple of years ago I wrote that if Hilary wins (which is most likely), the US will continue on its current path. Her warmongering is not the most dangerous for US, then the fact that she will finish ruining the economy by maintaining its current horrible state of "deregulation". After two of her mandates, the US will never recover, even if it does not get destroyed in a nuclear war which she starts.

    Simply depressing.

    Sanders voted and spoke out vehemently against both wars on Iraq, in 1991 and in 2003. A rarity among US politicians…

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @RobinG
    YES, & THANK YOU FOR REMINDING PEOPLE.......................

    It is also important to bear in mind what nearly no one appears to acknowledge: the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were carried out in retaliation to the Gulf War and its aftermath.
     
    The Gulf War of 1991 was also an orchestrated job, with legitimate complaint of Iraq against Kuwait over disputed oil reserves - ignored by the UN. Then duplicitous enticement of Saddam into Kuwait by US, and fabricated "incubator babies" false flag, etc., to incite US public to support war.

    Next, Clinton's murderous sanctions, enshrined by Madeleine Albright's evil callousness. September 11, 2001, followed a decade of overt US aggression, plus the thorns of US bases in the Saudis' side.

    Even writers who must surely know better begin their Iraq narratives in 2003, just like they start the Israel/Palestine clock in 1967. What gives?
    , @Carroll Price
    Wrong. Look at the evidence. The four attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that soon followed, were obvious false-flag attacks carried out for the purpose of justifying permanent wars financed by American tax payers and fought by American soldiers against Israel's perceived enemies in the middle east.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    the current quagmire in the Middle East began with the 1991, not the 2003 war on Iraq.
     
    RobinG highlighted the crucial passage that I agree with, but on further thought, the "current quagmire" did not begin with the 1991 war but with Israel's attack on Osirik, Iraq's nuclear facility, in 1981.
    Until that attack, Saddam's nuclear program was largely a feint to ward off Iran, with whom Iraq was at war, a war incited by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his/US pursuit of a way to punish Iran for discontinuing its role as US buttress against Communism in the region consequent to the overthrow of Reza Shah Pahlavi.

    Pahlavi had been placed in power subsequent to US-British overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953.

    Mossadeq was overthrown because Eisenhower was made to fear that Iran would "go Communist."

    But the real conundrum is why, in 1933, when Bolshevism was raging in numerous European states and Stalin and his henchmen were killing Russians and Ukrainians by the millions -- why, in that context did Roosevelt go behind the backs of his own State Department, assigning Henry Morgenthau to negotiate and ally the USA with Stalin.

    And why did Roosevelt collude with his Treasury Secretary, that same Henry Morgenthau, to funnel US taxpayer dollars to support Stalin and Communism, with whom the US subsequently engaged in a 50-year long Cold War that cost another several million lives.

    It really does go back to the full-blown emergence of zionism and the Jewish state in Palestine.

    “Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.”– John Sheehan, SJ.

    , @AmericaFirstNow
    Not correct! The primary motivation for 9/11 and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was US support for Israel as one can simply read page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report and look up 'Israel as a terrorists' motivation' in the index of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book as I mentioned to CIA's Mike Scheuer in following youtube:

    9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    Can also view see my exchange with Lee Hamilton in following youtube (with over half a million views) which was used in 'valentino's Ghost' film:

    What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn't!:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1

    Latest on 'Valentino's Ghost' film which screened to standing ovations at Venice Film Festival (world's oldest and most prestigious) and on PBS as well can be found in comments at bottom of following URL if interested further:

    'Valentino's Ghost' makes theatrical debut in Los Angeles and New York
    :


    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/05/15/valentinos-ghost-film-makes-its-us-theatrical-debut-in-los-angeles-and-nyc/

    Scroll to email exchange between 'Valentino's Ghost' director Michael Singh and PBS 'Frontline' executive producer David Fanning about Jewish donors at following URL if interested further:

    'Valentino's Ghost' makes comeback after 4 years of suppression:



    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/valentinos-comeback-suppression/omeback-suppression/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous

    I suspect Cruz is a complete cynic and manipulator who doesn’t actually believe what he claims.
     
    Wife Heidi Cruz was born to Seventh Day Adventist parents and they actually spent some time in Africa as missionaries. Yet today she works for Goldman-Sacks, a nice change of allegiance to a different paymaster, now worshipping Mammon. Having a Senator as husband must certainly have increased her value to her employer and in this are an ambitious power couple like Bill&Hillary who have amassed a fortune through politics and subsequent 'speaking fees' and their 'foundation'. Religion and avaricious greed, a great combination.

    they actually spent some time in Africa as missionaries. Yet today she works for Goldman-Sacks, a nice change of allegiance to a different paymaster,

    Missionaries and predatory capitalists/warmongers & war profiteers are two (or three or four) peas in the same pod.

    Henry Luce was the son of missionary parents and, together with Jewish zionists, Wall Street and London financiers, and of course FDR and Churchill who were the Cruzes of their day, were ardent cheerleaders for US involvement in wars in Europe in 1917 and, even more vociferously, in the run-up to WWII. Luce lost sight of Jesus in his commitment to the gospel of wealth and used his media empire to demonize and ultimately destroy the last remaining bastion of Christian Europe — France having been secularized as the calculated outcome of the Dreyfuss debacle.

    The Dulles brothers were raised by bible-thumping parents and grandparents who indoctrinated them with the gospel of wealth for breakfast and the quest for empire at lunch and dinner (see Kinzer’s The Brothers).

    “Christian” missionaries hold the belief that they are commissioned to “baptize all nations”– and do a little commerce on the side, like good Calvinists; they are internationalists of the first order, with a faux religious bent.

    Mormons also send their young out to missionize — and create trade networks — all over the world. The affinity between Benji Netanyahu and Mitt Romney is not as weird as it appears at first glance.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    You appear to be well intentioned but incredibly naïve. Either that or you're just another misinformation agent posing as an American patriot. Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio, and the role it plays in carrying out false-flag terrorist attacks all over Europe and other Western nations, which in turn, are never adequately investigated and immediately blamed on Muslim terrorist? The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, the mass shootings at Sandy Hook, Paris (2 shootings) and Sacramento, and the Boston Marathon bombing, all serve as classic examples of Gladio-type operations designed to terrorize civilian populations into accepting full-blown police states where the mere questioning of government authority and activities are considered tantamount to aiding and abetting terrorism. I would only add that your mention of a Washington based mafia would have been more accurately described as an international mafia operating out of Tel Aviv, with branch offices in London, Paris, Berlin, and Washington.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    You need to step away from the conspiracy websites Carroll. The oklahoma city bombing was revenge for the mass torture and murder of 84 men women and children in Waco, TX by the federal mafia. Sandy Hook, just like the Denver theater shootings and many other mass shootings, were done by a person on psychotropic medications, and the Boston bombings were done by muslim terrorists. And yes, I know “muslim terrorist” is redundant.

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn’t surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can’t prove they have and you can’t produce any evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn’t surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can’t prove they have and you can’t produce any evidence.
     
    While there is no proof of domestic terrorism by the CIA, mainly because they aren't a bunch of ham-handed idiots like the State Department which has apparently taken over espionage by using diplomats to carry it out and leaving evidence all over the place, I think that it is important to note that there IS however proof that the CIA carries out domestic operations in the US like Operation CHAOS.

    Operation Chaos was developed in 1967, under CIA director Richard Helms and Richard Ober, head of the Special Operations Group (CI/SOG) in the CIA's counterintelligence branch. One motivating factor for the development of Chaos was the revelations of CIA funding and control of the National Student Association (NSA) that appeared in Ramparts magazine in 1967, and a 1966 Ramparts story about how the CIA used the University of Michigan as a cover to train Vietnamese police. Stanley K. Sheinbaum, who had unwittingly worked for the CIA as a University of Michigan professor, coauthored the 1966 Ramparts article with Robert Scheer. This sent the CIA on the warpath against Ramparts. Leaks were becoming a huge problem and MH Chaos was organized to prevent any future leaks about CIA operations. The other purpose of Chaos was to coordinate counterintelligence and covert action projects of the FBI, IRS, all branches of the US Armed Forces, and major metropolitan police departments' intelligence units into one clearinghouse for data on the political activity of Americans.

    Just as the Phoenix program was deemed necessary because of the failure to "neutralize" civilian support for the Vietcong, Chaos grew out of the failure of the FBI's Cointelpro and the CIA's other domestic programs run out of their Office of Security, Project Merrimac and Resistance to neutralize growing domestic dissent. Prior to Chaos, the CIA's Merrimac and Resistance programs had infiltrated groups such as Women Strike for Peace (WSP), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), among others, ostensibly to prevent attacks on CIA personnel or installations.
     

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29001-memories-of-fire-remembering-the-watts-rebellion-operation-chaos-and-the-infectious-logic-of-national-security
    , @Junior
    I also think that it is important to note that there IS also proof that it is not above certain elements in our government to have the CIA carry out false-flags operations on American Citizens by committing acts of domestic terrorism, such as the proposed Operation Northwoods which was a policy that was approved by the highest levels of the Pentagon.

    "Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    "Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

    And lest you think that these are some "ravings" from conspiracy websites, here is an article on it from ABC news on May 1, 2001.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
    , @AmericaFirstNow
    Israel associated with Boston Bombing motive as well:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2013/04/23/neocon-driveninspired-iraq-afghanistan-wars-were-motive-for-boston-bombings/


    Israel as terrorism motivation for San Bernardino as well
    :

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/reported-politely-ignores/

    CIA's Mike Scheuer validated yet again with terrorism motivation in following youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp


    ISIS trains 600 terrorists to attack Europe (and US) because of Israel
    :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48_ZeiK5gqU
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @5371
    I suspect Cruz is a complete cynic and manipulator who doesn't actually believe what he claims. Only two children in a fifteen-year marriage makes him remarkably unphiloprogenitive for a supposed evangelical fanatic, add the covert sex to that.

    I suspect Cruz is a complete cynic and manipulator who doesn’t actually believe what he claims.

    Wife Heidi Cruz was born to Seventh Day Adventist parents and they actually spent some time in Africa as missionaries. Yet today she works for Goldman-Sacks, a nice change of allegiance to a different paymaster, now worshipping Mammon. Having a Senator as husband must certainly have increased her value to her employer and in this are an ambitious power couple like Bill&Hillary who have amassed a fortune through politics and subsequent ‘speaking fees’ and their ‘foundation’. Religion and avaricious greed, a great combination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    they actually spent some time in Africa as missionaries. Yet today she works for Goldman-Sacks, a nice change of allegiance to a different paymaster,
     
    Missionaries and predatory capitalists/warmongers & war profiteers are two (or three or four) peas in the same pod.

    Henry Luce was the son of missionary parents and, together with Jewish zionists, Wall Street and London financiers, and of course FDR and Churchill who were the Cruzes of their day, were ardent cheerleaders for US involvement in wars in Europe in 1917 and, even more vociferously, in the run-up to WWII. Luce lost sight of Jesus in his commitment to the gospel of wealth and used his media empire to demonize and ultimately destroy the last remaining bastion of Christian Europe -- France having been secularized as the calculated outcome of the Dreyfuss debacle.

    The Dulles brothers were raised by bible-thumping parents and grandparents who indoctrinated them with the gospel of wealth for breakfast and the quest for empire at lunch and dinner (see Kinzer's The Brothers).

    "Christian" missionaries hold the belief that they are commissioned to "baptize all nations"-- and do a little commerce on the side, like good Calvinists; they are internationalists of the first order, with a faux religious bent.

    Mormons also send their young out to missionize -- and create trade networks -- all over the world. The affinity between Benji Netanyahu and Mitt Romney is not as weird as it appears at first glance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @woodNfish
    Don't be an idiot Carroll. DC didn't bomb the Paris theater, or Brussels. Didn't murder the Charlie Hebdo staff or the people in San Bernadino, Ft. Hood, etc. Islam is a death cult and incompatible with Western culture. It needs to be destroyed.

    Your own government is no better than what we have here. The entire West has gone insane.

    You appear to be well intentioned but incredibly naïve. Either that or you’re just another misinformation agent posing as an American patriot. Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio, and the role it plays in carrying out false-flag terrorist attacks all over Europe and other Western nations, which in turn, are never adequately investigated and immediately blamed on Muslim terrorist? The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, the mass shootings at Sandy Hook, Paris (2 shootings) and Sacramento, and the Boston Marathon bombing, all serve as classic examples of Gladio-type operations designed to terrorize civilian populations into accepting full-blown police states where the mere questioning of government authority and activities are considered tantamount to aiding and abetting terrorism. I would only add that your mention of a Washington based mafia would have been more accurately described as an international mafia operating out of Tel Aviv, with branch offices in London, Paris, Berlin, and Washington.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    You need to step away from the conspiracy websites Carroll. The oklahoma city bombing was revenge for the mass torture and murder of 84 men women and children in Waco, TX by the federal mafia. Sandy Hook, just like the Denver theater shootings and many other mass shootings, were done by a person on psychotropic medications, and the Boston bombings were done by muslim terrorists. And yes, I know "muslim terrorist" is redundant.

    The CIA, just like the NSA, is just another part of the federal mafia. Would they commit domestic terrorism? It wouldn't surprise me. And I am not defending them, but you can't prove they have and you can't produce any evidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • You trust Bernie to be evenhanded on Israel?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous


    Israel isn’t the responsibility of the American people.
     
    Neither is the rest of the world. Bring all our troops home and defend our country alone. No others. Let them handle their own battles so we can raise our families and live our lives in peace.
     
    John Lenczowski, president of The Institute of World Politics, a Conservative think tank:

    There is the realist reaction to the recent policies, as well as that of the school of restraint. And I think both of these are very healthy correctives and there’s much to be commended about these approaches.

    But I would caution however that there are elements within each of these schools that suffer, ironically, from a lack of realism.

    How realistic is it to believe that we can permanently banish the moral and humanitarian impulses of the American heart and how they are manifested in our foreign policy? These are facts of life; they are as American as apple pie, and they cannot be banished or ignored as if they did not exist; they have to be managed. That is the task of leadership, and leadership has to explain how the concerns that arise from these impulses fit into the overall strategic context. http://tinyurl.com/jfzuvjp
     

    How realistic is it to believe that we can permanently banish the moral and humanitarian impulses of the American heart and how they are manifested in our foreign policy? These are facts of life; they are as American as apple pie, and they cannot be banished or ignored as if they did not exist;

    What sort of incoherent babble is this? Is English this person’s first language?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    Clueless clown Philip Giraldi supports the guy (Sanders) who advocates regime change in Syria by arming Syrian jihadi rebels over the guy (Trump) who is against arming the Syrian jihadi rebels. You've lost all credibility.

    http://www.hngn.com/articles/136477/20151004/bernie-sanders-supports-u-s-arming-rebels-overthrow-syrian-president.htm

    I hardly think PG is clueless, but agree with you in choosing Trump over Zio Bernie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kiza
    Ok, according to Madeleine Albright all US women who do not vote for Hillary Clinton have a special place reserved in Hell. Now, let us have a look at a special place that the Libyan and Syrian women, especially the underage girls, have got in Hell which Obama and Hilary Clinton created. It is the Hell of brisk trade in under-age girls by resourceful Turkish entrepreneurs.

    Some excerpts:
    1) "Girls between the ages of twelve and sixteen are referred to as pistachios, those between seventeen and twenty are called cherries, twenty to twenty-two are apples, and anyone older is a watermelon." — From a report on Turkey, by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT).
    2) Although the desperate victims are their Muslim sisters and brothers, wealthy Arab states do not take in refugees. The people in this area know too well that asylum seekers would bring with them problems, both social and economic. For many Muslim men such as wealthy, aging Saudis, it is easier to buy Syrian children from Turkey, Syria or Jordan as cheap sex slaves.
    3) Evidence, both witnessed and forensic, indicates that in every city where Syrian refugees have settled, prostitution has drastically increased. Young women between the ages of 15 and 20 are most commonly prostituted, but girls as young as thirteen are also exploited.
    4) "Many men in Turkey practice polygamy with Syrian girls or women, even though polygamy is illegal in Turkey," the lawyer Abdulhalim Yilmaz, head of Mazlumder's Refugee Commission, told Gatestone Institute. The horror is that Turkey is the country that the EU is entrusting to "solve" the serious problem of refugees and migrants.
    5) "There are markets of prostitution in Antep. Those are all state-controlled places. Hundreds of refugees -- women and children -- are sold to men much older than they are," said Keskin. "We found that women are forced into prostitution because they want to buy bread for their children."

    The full report: http://www.mazlumder.org/webimage/files/The%20Report%20on%20Syrian%20Women%20Refugees%282%29.pdf.

    If this Hell on Earth is for women who cannot vote for Hillary, I cannot even imagine the Hell that Madeleine Albright & Co. prepared for those US women who can vote for Hilary but do not.

    No need to ask Albright if it was worth it smashing up Libya and Syria.

    Who is now distributing the Viagra pills to the old Saudis to rape 12 years old Syrian girls Hilary? Did you get this business?

    Great comment Kiza!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @NoseytheDuke
    What if the individuals that we are led to believe are the terrorists were actually in the main just patsies a la Lee Harvey and so the real instigators of the terrorist acts would welcome you going after the families? I got the inclination that was annamarina's point, did you miss that or am I wrong?

    What? Am I I supposed to feel sympathy for murderous barbarians? Not happening. Take out the leadership to. You can’t kill the hydra if you don’t cut off its heads.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Carroll Price
    Practically all of the "terrorism" you're overly concerned about is being committed by the Washington regime you correctly identify as the federal mafia.

    Don’t be an idiot Carroll. DC didn’t bomb the Paris theater, or Brussels. Didn’t murder the Charlie Hebdo staff or the people in San Bernadino, Ft. Hood, etc. Islam is a death cult and incompatible with Western culture. It needs to be destroyed.

    Your own government is no better than what we have here. The entire West has gone insane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    You appear to be well intentioned but incredibly naïve. Either that or you're just another misinformation agent posing as an American patriot. Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio, and the role it plays in carrying out false-flag terrorist attacks all over Europe and other Western nations, which in turn, are never adequately investigated and immediately blamed on Muslim terrorist? The Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, the mass shootings at Sandy Hook, Paris (2 shootings) and Sacramento, and the Boston Marathon bombing, all serve as classic examples of Gladio-type operations designed to terrorize civilian populations into accepting full-blown police states where the mere questioning of government authority and activities are considered tantamount to aiding and abetting terrorism. I would only add that your mention of a Washington based mafia would have been more accurately described as an international mafia operating out of Tel Aviv, with branch offices in London, Paris, Berlin, and Washington.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Gladio
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @woodNfish
    I have made no secret of the fact that I consider the amerikan government is a criminal organization. I call it the federal mafia for a reason. i would love to see the "leaders" be tried and executed for their crimes. Bill Clinton, his administration and especially Janet Reno were responsible for the mass torture and murder of about 83 men, women, and children in Waco Texas - the Branch Davidians. Why they haven't been tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague shows you that the Hague and other organizations like it are just as corrupt as most of the West.

    All the wars since WWII that the USA has been in have been illegal, and none of the leadership has ever paid a price for it. They should, but it will probably never happen.

    If terrorists only killed the leadership, I wouldn't complain. Scum murdering other scum. Looks like justice to me. The leaders create the problems so they can line their pockets off the blood of the citizenry. They are the cause of the problems let them endure the consequences. Instead terrorists murder ordinary citizens. So yes, kill the terrorist's entire families. Do you think they would hesitate to kill your family?

    Practically all of the “terrorism” you’re overly concerned about is being committed by the Washington regime you correctly identify as the federal mafia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Don't be an idiot Carroll. DC didn't bomb the Paris theater, or Brussels. Didn't murder the Charlie Hebdo staff or the people in San Bernadino, Ft. Hood, etc. Islam is a death cult and incompatible with Western culture. It needs to be destroyed.

    Your own government is no better than what we have here. The entire West has gone insane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Fran Macadam
    "Even Obama was able to summon some resistance, when he walked back from the Syria red line."

    As even the NYT has recently published, he then authorized a covert war in Syria behind the public's back.

    You’re giving Obama credit where no credit is due. Vladimir Putin walked him back from his red line in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericaFirstNow
    Not only Putin & Russia but also the UK Parliament vote against joining US in striking Syria as Obama was pushing Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Syria and basically still is in supporting 'moderate rebels' (some of whom joined Al Nusra and ISIS too) to oust Assad for Israel:

    Israel Lobby pushing for US action against Syrian government:


    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    ISIS result of Israeli Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iraq & Syria
    :

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/



    CIA's Mike Scheuer on Israel & Iraq war as terrorism motivation
    :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    ISIS trains 600 terrorists to attack Europe (and US) b/c of Israel
    :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48_ZeiK5gqU

    Hatred of Israel as San Bernardino terrorism motivation as well
    :

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/reported-politely-ignores/

    Petraeus & CENTCOM also warned of Israel threat to US:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/07/general-petraeus-israel-emails

    High Cost of Subservience to Israel
    (by Paul Findley):

    http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0064805.html

    CIA's Mike Scheuer told Congress to Dump Israel
    :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHl1JnQoIWQ

    Pandering Congress listens to Israel 1st AIPAC & Neocons instead:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98

    Scroll to Founding Father George Washington's 'Farewell Address' warning at bottom of http://astandforjustice.org if interested further!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @LondonBob
    Trump's AIPAC speech was written by his son in law and someone called Ken Kurson. Not surprising as it contradicted many of his oft stated positions. He didn't fool his critics. I have often thought Kasich would make a good VP pick for Trump but sometimes Kasich's opinions alarm me, then again how do I know he isn't just saying these things because he has to.

    If Kasich became our next president his administration would rule as if it had borrowed one trillion dollars from the World Bank with all of the economic and social punishments described in “The Shock Doctrine”. Cuts, cuts, cuts, and then some more cuts except for the military.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I’m still waiting for that candidate who says he she opposes the current wars because they are unjust and immoral, not because they cost too much.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    A person never knows what they're really going to get when they vote. The Nobel Peace Prize winner seemed unenthusiastic about war yet has presided over the criminal war in Syria. It's depressing to go over the irresponsible rhetoric of some of the candidates. One just keeps their fingers crossed that we don't get dragged into some disaster that escalates unexpectedly out of control. Clinton is for some reason a war lover who also has the inverse talent of trashing everything she touches; she's a sadist who cackles about death and ruin. Cruz is a weird and strange man, a religious crackpot who likes to hire high priced prostitutes. Both he and Clinton seem to be perverted people, neither one psychologically normal. Sanders and Trump both, on the other hand, appear to be easier to size up and don't have darker tunnels within their personalities. Of the two Trump seems to be the more skeptical of war as an answer whereas Sanders clings to so-called 'humanitarian war' as an option.
    We don't get to create our own fantasy candidates. The bottom line is what are our choices?

    A person never knows what they’re really going to get when they vote.

    I do. Simple observation should be enough to convince anyone that their vote will get exactly what it has gotten for the past 40 years , which is more of the same. Do what I’ve done for the past 30 years. Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for “changes” that never happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . Stay home on election day and laugh your ass off at the fools who waste their time voting for 'changes' that never happen."

    I read you five-by-five, Mr. Price. Voting in America is an exercise in futility.

    This year, though, if it's Trump vs. Our Lady of the Pantsuits, I'm emerging from hibernation to vote for the former.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @woodNfish
    Sanders is out because western commies don't understand economics and none of his policies can be paid for. Trump is the only sane choice.

    And in contrast to what Giraldy (the author) thinks, killing the families of terrorists is a good policy. Giraldy is just another leftist pussy who doesn't understand that the way to stop terrorism is to make the personal cost too high. Killing a terrorist's family will put an end to most of it. In Iran, terrorists and their families are honored in society. Palstinians parade their children through the streets in child-sized bomb vests while chanting "Death to Israel!", and "Death to America!". Terrorists are supported by their families. The mother of the man in the San Bernadino terrorist couple knew here son and daughter-in-law were going to die in a terrorist act and was caring for their orphaned children. (The LSM won't acknowledge that fact.) When terrorism is a celebrated family affair the only way to stop it is to eliminate the families.

    You wouldn’t happen to be a Zionist Jew would you? Just asking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I could never vote for Cruz or Hillary under any circumstances.

    My sentiments exactly.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @David Evans
    Until voters understand that America is Israel's bludgeon that is being used to balkanize the Middle East for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan, and the complimentary neocon Jew's A Clean Break agenda, they will suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

    Multi-trillion-dollar US wars for Israel have bankrupted us and repeadedly gotten US citizens and facilities attacked at home and abroad in retaliatory terror strikes. But voters stand little chance of understanding this as long as media and Congress are Israeli-controlled, and they allow themselves to be distracted by lesser issues provided for them by their controllers.

    This is the plan that has bankrupted America and gotten us attacked:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

    These traitors and AIPAC-owned Congress are pushing this plan (and their globalist PNAC plan which was behind the putsche in Ukraine - but I digress...)

    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/list-of-neocons-for-Iraq-war.htm

    This is how politics in America works:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-israeli-lobby-works-in-the-united-states/5313557

    and this is a result of continuing to support Israel:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48_ZeiK5gqU

    Per Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan for Iraq & beyond in Mideast:

    The Unfolding of Yinon’s “Zionist Plan for the Middle East”: The Crisis in Iraq and the Centrality of the National Interest of Israel:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @edNels


    thom was raised a Republican... Now I know a lot of us and ya'll were raised R...... But so what... do you think I as a Democrat raised....forget about it... it is all bull shit...

    I regard Thom Hartman as a sort of small type of mentality...

    Heard Thom Hartmann mention to Max Blumenthal on Russia Today (RT) that Yiddish was spoken in his home while growing up so he is apparently Jewish too:

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/conversations-wgreat-minds-p1-max-blumenthal-explains-politicide

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/conversations-wgreat-minds-p-2-max-blumenthal-what-does-israel-want

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @RobinG
    Great post David, and good selection of what all Americans should know about Israel. And nice photo of USS Liberty on your FB page.

    On June 8 this year Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, and many others of us will be at Arlington Cemetery for the commemoration of the Israeli attack on the Liberty. There will also be a press conference to announce the Year of Liberty from the Israel Lobby, an educational outreach campaign leading up to June 8, 2017, the 50th anniversary of the Israeli attack.

    For those not familiar with this treacherous event, here are two of a series of articles by Ray --
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/04/still-waiting-for-uss-libertys-truth/
    Still Waiting for USS Liberty’s Truth

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/17/a-uss-libertys-heros-passing/
    A USS Liberty’s Hero’s Passing

    John McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/06/20/mccain-confronted-on-uss-liberty-cover-up-media-accomplices/

    Cindy McCain on the USS LIBERTY COVERUP: “I don’t care about this issue.”:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2011/10/04/cindy-mccain-on-the-uss-liberty-coverup-i-dont-care-about-this-issue/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Art
    "Trump’s AIPAC speech was written by his son in law and someone called Ken Kurson."

    Most of Trump’s speech was about Iran nukes and bad bad Obama – red meat for the terrorist Jew AIPAC throng. Although Trump had the Little Jews on their feet cheering, he really said nothing new in favor of Israel.

    At the end of the speech he used the words “country of Palestine” – this is a big no-no in Jew world. This means a two country solution – something the hard line Zionists hate.

    Trump’s son in-law is of a rich US Jew family stock. It looks like he is NOT a hard line Zionist. There are many rich US Jews who want Israel to settle. The truth of Israel’s evil doings, is getting to hard to cover up. They are being selfish. They think that Israel is going to upset their happy powerful money making situation in America.

    p.s. The real political battles in America are being fought between Jews, for Jews, because of Jews.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • the author has cherry picked Trumps contradictory statements about the military and war – there are lots to indicate he’s not anti war or anti military at all

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.