The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin Marriage Is Like the de Facto Israel-Saudi Arabia Alliance
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With the separated husband and wife team of former Congressman Anthony Weiner and Hillary’s right-hand woman Huma Abedin back in the news, it’s worth thinking about this odd couple.

Weiner comes from the most pro-Israel side of the Democratic Party (e.g., Hillary’s big donor Haim Saban donated to this 2013 run for mayor of NYC). Abedin is a Muslim South Asian born in the US but largely raised in Saudi Arabia.

This may seem like a strange pairing, but one of the little remarked developments of recent years is the de facto arms-length alliance that has emerged between the Gulf Sunni Arab states and the Jewish state. They both have a common enemy in Shi’ite Iran and dislike Iran’s ally, the Alaawite Assad in Syria. Lately, homophobic white Christian Russia has been actively helping prop up Assad in Syria, so that gives Hillary a politically correct way to tie together her desire for more destruction in Syria.

To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes, they seem like two kids who give you hope in a glorious future in which Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

 
Hide 145 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe sexting is really diplomacy by other means.

    Btw…

    Is this real?

    From description:

    “According to a startling Pentagon video obtained by The Intercept, the future of global cities will be an amalgam of the settings of “Escape from New York” and “Robocop” — with dashes of the “Warriors” and “Divergent” thrown in. It will be a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers.”

    ——————

    “To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes, they seem like two kids who give you hope in a glorious future in which Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions to the Clinton Foundation.”

    This sounds like an orgy.

    • Replies: @Angular momentum
    You missed the best one. Dredd ,not the Sylvester Stallone one, but the Carl Urban one.
    , @Boomstick
    The US military has been thinking about insurgencies in urban areas for decades. Back in the 50's and 60's the decisive military terrain was out in rural areas. Everyone worried about land reform and strategic hamlets and winning the hearts and minds of rural peasants, because rural areas was where most of the population was. During the 70's and 80's the world changed as the population shifted to the cities. Now we have megacities like Sao Paulo, Cairo, or Lagos. Even in nations that lack megacities the population is almost always urban rather than rural. In a war the decisive terrain will be in urban areas, because that's where the population is.

    As much as the US military would like to fight a war out in the open desert where they can blast the conventional forces of a state adversary, the enemy is not likely to oblige. So the Army and USMC have to learn how to fight low intensity wars in urban areas.
    , @Aristippus
    It sounds pretty reasonable. The developing world is urbanizing very rapidly, because cities are where the economic opportunities are generally located. There's a huge shift in populations going from rural to urban all over the developing world and most megacities are in poor countries. Living in a slum in Delhi sucks, but it's marginally better than farming rice in a village that lacks electricity and running water. In my experience visiting an Asian megacity, it's completely true that the population grew much faster than the infrastructure and government services needed to support the people. There's a tendency in the rapidly developing countries for most internal migrants to move to the capital instead of dispersing to numerous moderately sized cities. My opinion is that America is advantaged in that the country is decentrally urbanized with large and medium sized cities all over the place instead of 75 million people all trying to live in New York. If you assume that the US military is going to be involved mostly in the developing world in the future (fighting terrorism and whatnot), then it's reasonable to expect places like Lagos, Lima and Karachi are going to be an absolute mess.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Cities may be the future, but cities aren't all the same. Traditionally, cities were value creation centers. Besides being hubs of trade and commerce, they were also where capital was developed and deepened. But now there is a new kind of city, especially, but not exclusively, in the Third World: the city where globalist loot is spent and the service providers to the global loot-spenders dwell.

    This has gotten so pronounced that even the ossified twerps at The Economist have had to (sort of) notice.
    http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21707214-all-over-world-people-escape-poverty-moving-cities-why-does-not
    So don't look for future innovation or industrial production to start emanating from Lagos, despite its concentration of 21m+ souls freed from the drudgery of subsistence agriculture.

    Of course, resort towns for the wealthy are nothing new (ancient Pompeii served this role for ancient Rome), but the scale is new. Traditional resorts were third- or fourth-tier towns, and generally distinct from centers of industry, commerce and government. These new loot cities are the centers of government and their industry is the only national industry: loot consumption.

    Anyway, as far as the military is concerned, fighting an enemy embedded in a city is almost always a mistake. No city is self-sufficient. Once cut off from the surrounding country, it must eventually submit or starve. It's still a popular objective with political commanders though.
  2. Ivy says:

    Syrian troubles are over oil pipelines.

    [MORE]

    by Gaius Publius

    Summary first: We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    I’m not sure most Americans have figured out what’s happening in Syria, because so much of what we hear is confusing to us, and really, we know so little of the context for it. Is it an insurgency against a brutal ruler? Is it a group of insurgencies struggling for power in a nearly failed state? Is it a proxy war expressing the territorial and ideological interests of the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Iran?

    Or something else?

    According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it is something else — a war between competing national interests to build, or not build, a pipeline to the Mediterranean so natural gas can be exported to Europe. Inconveniently for Syria, that nation lies along an obvious pipeline route.

    Which makes it another war between interests for money — something not very hard to understand at all.

    Here’s Kennedy’s argument via EcoWatch. This is a long piece, well worth a full read, but I’ll try to present just the relevant sections here.

    The Historical Context: Decades of CIA-Sponsored Coups and Counter-Coups in Syria

    Kennedy’s introductory section contains an excellent examination of the history of U.S. involvement in Syria starting in the 1950s with the Cold War machinations of the Eisenhower-appointed Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. Together, they effectively ruled U.S. foreign policy.

    Kennedy writes (my emphasis):
    Syria: Another Pipeline War

    … America’s unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

    … [W]e need to look at history from the Syrians’ perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    During the 1950′s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan [sic] Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect.”

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency’s creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria’s democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA’s handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za’im. Al-Za’im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.
    Kennedy then details the history of coups and counter-coups in and against Syria, and concludes this section with this:
    Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA’s clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report,” to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government’s denials.

    The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today.” … A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA’s bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

    While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.
    So much for our supposed interest in “humanitarian” intervention in Syria. From a Syrian point of view, it has never been thus. It has been about pipelines since 1949, and they understand that, even if we don’t.

    The Current Conflagration

    Kennedy then turns to the present, or the near-present. Refer to the map above as you read:
    A Pipeline War

    In [the Syrians'] view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

    Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world’s richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar’s gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin’s stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia’s second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia’s conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

    The Saudi’s geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom’s principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
    Which puts the Qatari pipeline squarely opposite to Russia’s national interest — natural gas (methane) sales to Europe.
    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin’s view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally.”
    That was likely the last straw vis-à-vis the U.S. Which brings us to another pipeline, the so-called “Islamic Pipeline” (see map above):
    “Assad further enraged the Gulf’s Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline” running from Iran’s side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran’s influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    Another, competing pipeline which would run through Syrian territory, but this time carrying Iranian gas instead of Qatari gas. Thus the demonizing of Assad as evil in the mold of Saddam Hussein, instead of just a run-of-the-mill Middle East autocrat, as bad as some but better than others. Kennedy includes a good section on the history of the al-Assad family’s rule of Syria, including this information from top reporters Sy Hersh and Robert Parry:
    According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn’t beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca.” Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis.”
    In September 2013, the Sunni states involved in the Qatar-Turkey pipeline were so determined to remove Syrian opposition to the pipeline that they offered, via John Kerry, to carry the whole cost of an U.S. invasion to topple al-Assad.
    Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table.”
    Obama’s response:
    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents.” But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
    The rest is a history of provocation and over-reaction — a great deal of both — and chaos and death in Syria. Kennedy provides much detail here, at one point adding:
    [Syria's] moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad’s Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can’t blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
    I’ll leave it there, but again, do read the entire piece if you want to truly understand what’s going on in Syria, and what is about to go on.

    Bottom Line

    Bottom line, it’s as Kennedy said: “No one wants to die for a pipeline” … but many do and will.

    I’ll offer three thoughts. One, if we weren’t so determined to be deeply dependent on fossil fuels, this would be their war, not ours. Two, we are deeply dependent on fossil fuels because of the political machinations of the oil companies, their CEOs, and the banks and hedge funds who fund them, all of whom pay our government officials — via campaign contributions and the revolving door — to prolong that dependence. We’re here because the holders of big oil money want us here.

    And three, keep all this in mind during the term of the next president. It will help you make sense of the phony warrior-cum-humanitarian arguments we’re almost certain to be subjected to.

    We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Never underestimate the Israeli factor.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Economic determinst arguments are always trotted out to explain these geo-political events. While they are not irrelevant, they do not necessarily explain everything. Remember back in 2002-2003, when a lot of people were pushing the idea that the war in Afghanistan was over a proposed pipeline. Well, the war isn't over, and there is still no pipeline. A country riven by civil war and crazy head-chopping-off-jihadists sounds like a lousy place to build a pipeline that could easily be sabotaged. Why not just build it via a different route? Through Turkey? Through Jordan and Israel? Through Saudi Arabia?

    "According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr......"

    And that is supposed to be an authoritative source? I haven't noticed that the third-generation Kennedys are very bright or adept at much of anything.
    , @RonaldB
    It's nuts to say our usage of fossil fuels is optional and due only to the foot-dragging sponsored by the oil companies. The fact is, fossil fuel, including natural gas, is the most efficient, and throwing billions of dollars of government subsidies at "clean energy alternatives" will not do anything except increase the national debt.

    Having said that, the US is easily independent of political ramifications of Middle Eastern oil. North America produces more oil than Saudia Arabia, natural gas and coal are plentiful, and approving the keystone pipeline would make domestically-produced fossil energy even more available. So, even the worst scenario, a Middle Eastern effective boycott, would not have strategic implications, but would at most increase the price of oil and gas moderately.

    If the report is true, that Obama resisted the pressure from Republicans to invade Syria, I have a new-found respect for Obama and continue to hope that Trump considers himself completely separate from the Republican establishment.

    Also, the US can be supportive of Israel vis a vis UN and EU boycotts and one-sided resolutions, but does not need to ally itself with Israel foreign policy. Israel has its own, legitimate interests, which may not coincide with the US. Israel should go its own way, without the collaboration of the CIA. Israel has direct security interests as a neighbor of a hostile Syria and Iran, but it is up to Israel, and not the US, to best protect Israel's vital security.
    , @Lagertha
    Whoa. Thank you, Ivy, for condensing something that is so worrisome and potentially devastating. It is always about money and control. I remember hearing about the pipeline being the only reason that the Russians went to Afghanistan.
    , @Kyle
    This isn't our war. North America is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. In order to sell our gas to Europe or anywhere else, it must be liquified and shipped, so we can't compete with Russia or gulf states for the EU market anyway. Syria has absolutely nothing to do with our consumption of fossil fuels. The only reason we're involved in Siria is that the quatar turkey pipeline would weaken Russias economy and military.
  3. I heard from a wise friend that Huma and Antony are still married only to prevent testimony on one another.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    My prediction: there is some bad shit linking Huma to Saudi Arabian machinations, money, Clinton Foundation,money, Qatar, icing Assad, money, pipeline to EU, throw in uranium deals, money...etc, through the smart phones of Weiner & Huma. Let's face it, anyone over 35 is just not as aware about how the internet works (how hacking is such a weapon against people who must keep up appearances) as Clinton & C0...or really, anyone 35+. Huma is compromised - she got sloppy, and now the damage control is out of control. I smell some bad news coming from this, but Weiner is not even central to it. The fact that they didn't get a speedy divorce will hurt her even more. Huma is clearly hiding something...and the ties go to the Middle East, and all the mess and body bags that the American People have had to face for almost 15 years now. Yeah, isolationism is just the natural thing to turn to now. Let the M.E. solve their squabbles. No more war.
    , @Nico
    Makes sense. It IS 2016 and with all the buzz on sexual misconduct one would think that corruption of a minor of all things would open the door to the speediest imaginable divorce as another poster argues. There is definitely some mutual back-scratching going on here.
    , @CK
    ... prevent compelled testimony. Voluntary is as voluntary sees profitable.
  4. And it was Hillary, by the accounts, that pushed Huma into having a relationship with Mr. Danger. Carlos, being the horndog, was all for it, but Huma (from the stories) was giving off strong “no” vibes—-till Sick Hillary shoved them together on the Vineyard one summer/

    Perhaps Hillary convinced Huma that being single AND sleeping in Hillary’s bed was far too suspicious, and that Weiner (a former Schumer aide, and rising political star) was a good match/cover for the Saudi Princess.

    Me gets the sense that Hillary “groomed” Huma, in more ways than one.

    P.S. Chuck Schumer had Weiner as his aide and gave him help in his rise in Congress (and in the NYC election he flopped in, IIRC). Perhaps we should start looking at Schumer’s other former aides to see if Schumer’ judgment was just as bad with them—for example, current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (i.e. Manhattan) Preet Bharara. I wonder if Bharara has any skeletons in his closet like Weiner—maybe they were drinking buddies back in the day? Schumer’s penchant for loving the camera seems to have made him choose at least one aide addicted to the camera—both in private and in public. Is Bharara similar? I ask this only because Bharara has done some high-level prosecutions to get his name out there—political prosecutions. Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it’s best to know now if he’s pulling a Weiner on his wife.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    Don't know about this, but presumably Bharara is the USA who forwarded the Abedin-Weiner devices and server material located thereon to the FBI and didn't sit on it. Perhaps he's eliminating a political rival in NYC? Bharara's office was Rudy's stepping stone to the mayoralty of NYC and beyond (had he not screwed it up).
    , @PiltdownMan

    Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it’s best to know now if he’s pulling a Weiner on his wife.
     
    His wife, Dalya Bharara, has a Muslim father and a Jewish mother. There seems to be little public information on her other than that, and that she is a "non-practising lawyer".

    Preet Bharara is following the path that Rudy Guiliani took as US attorney for the Southern District, and Eliot Spitzer did as New York State Attorney, in prosecuting high profile cases (some on Wall Street) in establishing a public identity as a results oriented, hard charging defender of the public.

    I'm not sure what political office Bharara aspires to. He is foreign born, so it is probably Governor or Mayor, or possibly Senator.

    His brother made a half-billion dollars from selling a dotcom to Amazon. He has stated that he had a meaningful chunk of equity in it, though I doubt he could self-finance a run for office in New York, where political races are expensive.

    I don't know how big an Indian-American electorate there is in New York, but going by the comments on various online articles about him, they hate his guts—they seem to think he is an Uncle Tom figure. Apparently, this is because some of the targets of his high profile prosecutions were from the old country, and they figure he went after them simply to establish that he was fully assimilated.
    , @George
    Preetinder Bharara is another example of the Asians replacing Jews as the American intellectual elite. The identical Schumer backround makes it an interesting sociological experiment in an all else being equal sort of way. Kind of interesting how South Asians are floating around the mess, Huma Abedin, and Neera Tanden. That immigrant work ethic.
    , @George
    Another thought: Wiener is the mole.

    Opportunity: He had access to his wife's living area.
    Means: He may have had access to his wife's passwords and and electronics.
    Motive: His marriage was close to ended already. Professional jealousy. He's an out of control wack job.

    Theory: The emails that were on his pc were sent to Wikileaks.
    , @jack ryan
    Wow, I didn't know Chuck Schumer groomed Anthony Wiener.

    These two might be the most loathsome, slimy New Yawkers out there - their accents are terrible.
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    (From State Department releases satisfying a FOIA request, rendered into a searchable archive by Wikileaks)

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

    The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

    An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.

    • Replies: @J
    The State Department is wrong. Nuclear balance between enemies does not prevent armed response to provocations. Mutual dissuasion works both ways meaning that the Iran theocrats will surely think twice and be prevented to respond to Israeli actions. Look how a courageous leader like Vladimir Putin recovered Crimea and is fighting in Ukraine and Syria - in spite of nuclear dissuasion. When you and me both have revolvers pointing to each other's heads, the more courageous wins. The one with "beytzim" - balls. Or the craziest, and no one is crazier than we.
  6. @Anon
    Maybe sexting is really diplomacy by other means.

    Btw...

    Is this real?

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

    From description:

    "According to a startling Pentagon video obtained by The Intercept, the future of global cities will be an amalgam of the settings of "Escape from New York" and "Robocop" — with dashes of the "Warriors" and "Divergent" thrown in. It will be a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers."

    ------------------

    "To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes, they seem like two kids who give you hope in a glorious future in which Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions to the Clinton Foundation."

    This sounds like an orgy.

    You missed the best one. Dredd ,not the Sylvester Stallone one, but the Carl Urban one.

  7. “arms-length alliance that has emerged between the Gulf Sunni Arab states and the Jewish state.”

    Prophesied as the Hebrab Republic in the 1979 movie Americathon. If the Youngn’s want to see America in the 70s, at it’s most retarded, including a star studded cast and soundtrack, Americathon is a relatively painless hour or so.

    http://nightflight.com/americathon-the-prescient-1979-absurd-comedy-that-predicted-americas-unfunny-future/

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

    You don’t hear songs about LA anymore

    (Living out in LA) Such A Beautiful Day – Beach Boys

    • Replies: @Stan
    Is that you Priss? Chauncey Gardner of 2016.
    , @Anonymous
    It's interesting how bad TV was back in the 70s.
  8. @Ivy
    Syrian troubles are over oil pipelines.

    by Gaius Publius

    Summary first: We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    I'm not sure most Americans have figured out what's happening in Syria, because so much of what we hear is confusing to us, and really, we know so little of the context for it. Is it an insurgency against a brutal ruler? Is it a group of insurgencies struggling for power in a nearly failed state? Is it a proxy war expressing the territorial and ideological interests of the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Iran?

    Or something else?

    According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it is something else — a war between competing national interests to build, or not build, a pipeline to the Mediterranean so natural gas can be exported to Europe. Inconveniently for Syria, that nation lies along an obvious pipeline route.

    Which makes it another war between interests for money — something not very hard to understand at all.

    Here's Kennedy's argument via EcoWatch. This is a long piece, well worth a full read, but I'll try to present just the relevant sections here.

    The Historical Context: Decades of CIA-Sponsored Coups and Counter-Coups in Syria

    Kennedy's introductory section contains an excellent examination of the history of U.S. involvement in Syria starting in the 1950s with the Cold War machinations of the Eisenhower-appointed Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. Together, they effectively ruled U.S. foreign policy.

    Kennedy writes (my emphasis):
    Syria: Another Pipeline War

    ... America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

    ... [W]e need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    During the 1950's, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan [sic] Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect."

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.
    Kennedy then details the history of coups and counter-coups in and against Syria, and concludes this section with this:
    Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials.

    The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today." ... A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA's bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

    While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.
    So much for our supposed interest in "humanitarian" intervention in Syria. From a Syrian point of view, it has never been thus. It has been about pipelines since 1949, and they understand that, even if we don't.

    The Current Conflagration

    Kennedy then turns to the present, or the near-present. Refer to the map above as you read:
    A Pipeline War

    In [the Syrians'] view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

    Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

    The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
    Which puts the Qatari pipeline squarely opposite to Russia's national interest — natural gas (methane) sales to Europe.
    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
    That was likely the last straw vis-à-vis the U.S. Which brings us to another pipeline, the so-called "Islamic Pipeline" (see map above):
    "Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    Another, competing pipeline which would run through Syrian territory, but this time carrying Iranian gas instead of Qatari gas. Thus the demonizing of Assad as evil in the mold of Saddam Hussein, instead of just a run-of-the-mill Middle East autocrat, as bad as some but better than others. Kennedy includes a good section on the history of the al-Assad family's rule of Syria, including this information from top reporters Sy Hersh and Robert Parry:
    According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn't beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca." Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis."
    In September 2013, the Sunni states involved in the Qatar-Turkey pipeline were so determined to remove Syrian opposition to the pipeline that they offered, via John Kerry, to carry the whole cost of an U.S. invasion to topple al-Assad.
    Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
    Obama's response:
    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
    The rest is a history of provocation and over-reaction — a great deal of both — and chaos and death in Syria. Kennedy provides much detail here, at one point adding:
    [Syria's] moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
    I'll leave it there, but again, do read the entire piece if you want to truly understand what's going on in Syria, and what is about to go on.

    Bottom Line

    Bottom line, it's as Kennedy said: "No one wants to die for a pipeline" ... but many do and will.

    I'll offer three thoughts. One, if we weren't so determined to be deeply dependent on fossil fuels, this would be their war, not ours. Two, we are deeply dependent on fossil fuels because of the political machinations of the oil companies, their CEOs, and the banks and hedge funds who fund them, all of whom pay our government officials — via campaign contributions and the revolving door — to prolong that dependence. We're here because the holders of big oil money want us here.

    And three, keep all this in mind during the term of the next president. It will help you make sense of the phony warrior-cum-humanitarian arguments we're almost certain to be subjected to.

    We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    Never underestimate the Israeli factor.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Some Israeli big shot just stated that the recent earthquakes in Italy were God's response to a UN resolution supported by Italy,being mean to Israel for its handling of the Temple Mount. These guys have nuclear bombs??
    , @Ivy
    The default assumption in the ME is that Israelis have gamed out scenarios.
  9. Don’t worry, we have just uncovered a much more serious threat to the Republic: Some unemployed lunatic shouted Jew-S-A! at a Trump rally.

    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    Such a person could in no way possible be a "plant." No way folks!
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Don’t worry, we have just uncovered a much more serious threat to the Republic: Some unemployed lunatic shouted Jew-S-A! at a Trump rally."

    Scott Foval?

  10. @syonredux
    Never underestimate the Israeli factor.

    Some Israeli big shot just stated that the recent earthquakes in Italy were God’s response to a UN resolution supported by Italy,being mean to Israel for its handling of the Temple Mount. These guys have nuclear bombs??

    • Replies: @Anon
    Yes, the whole freedom of speech thing means people can say whatever dumb thing they want.
    , @Gabriel M
    He's not a "big shot", he's a member of parliament and he's only that because he's a Druze benefiting from AA (what?!? you mean Ayoub Kara isn't a Jewish name!). Moreover, his objection was that Italy supported a farcical resolution that, among other Kafakaesque details, denies Jewish and CHRISTIAN connections to the Temple Mount.

    This happens to be a sore point for me. I've visited the Temple Mount twice, as is my right under the "status quo". Before going up you get searched twice, once for weapons and once for prayer articles - they open your wallet to check you haven't got a copy of grace after meals. Then you go up surrounded by a group of Israeli police armed with submachine guns pointed inwards at you whilst leering Arabs hurl abuse. The second time I was arrested for ... kissing a rock with my hands and bowing slightly as I left. I've now signed a solemn statement promising never to act in such a disgraceful manner again. The UN resolution describes this as "far right extremists" "storming" the temple mount. So, yes, Italy can go F themselves. I wouldn't, of course, say they deserve an earthquake, because I'm not some dumb Druze guy who got over-promoted.
    , @biz
    CLASSIC anti-Israel internet comment!

    Classic because in taking something that a back-bencher Arab parliamentarian in Israel did and trying to use it to to make Jews look bad it is following the standard formula: distort the facts, even to the point of being the opposite of what they actually are, in order to try to make uninformed people turn against Israel.

    If people were less stupid about Israel, you would have heard about that incident and said "Wow, it is great that Israel is a democracy where even Arabs, even minority Arabs such as Druze as this guy is, serve in the Parliament, and it is also great that they are a free country where people, even those Druze, can say silly things to the media. "
  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Nearly everything we get from the MSM about any of this- Weiner emails, what it means for Hillary, Russian govt are the ones hacking previous emails, etc. is all suspect, frankly. We really can’t take any of it at face value. The MSM has been clearly biased towards the Dems, even in collusion with them.

    For all we really know, this could be a scheme to dispel Hillary’s felonious email debacle in the eye of the public right before the election- maybe in a few days, they declare that,”hey, her emails on Huma/Weiner’s phone were all minor things, so she must’ve been telling the truth that the other large batch of emails (which she bit-bleached!!!) were about yoga, wedding planning and the like.”And such a summary might also allow them to try to diffuse the increasing recognition by the public that the MSM has been colluding with the Dems (“see, we reported on it!”).

    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    This is a popular theory with people who watch too much TV. You don't help someone by dropping a bomb on their campaign ten days before the election. No amount of exoneration is worth a week of bad coverage before the election.

    This has a Mark Felt vibe to it. The WSJ story about bribing is second in command and now these Wiener docs makes Comey look like an idiot inside the department. They made a fool of him and this is how he is returning the favor. Next week he can stand in front of the press and give a recitation of all the lies they told him.

    In Washington, all politics are personal.
    , @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    That's a very compelling theory. Scary but sort of the perfect culmination of what Wikileaks has revealed already
    , @Kyle
    I always assumed the hackers were american nerds, not Russian nerds. Either way it's irrelevant, Russia could just as easily buy data from nerds in America than they could hack it themselves. I laugh when I hear claims that Russia hacked the emails, no nerds hacked the emails. We're they Russian nerds, possibly but who cares that is irrelevant.
    Megan Kelly is saying that Huma had all her emails forwarded to her personal yahoo account, and Alex Jones is saying that when yahoo was hacked in 2014 is when wiki leaks got all of these emails. In fact anyone who has a yahoo account got their entire email history hacked when that happened. It's too much data for anyone to care about, unless you are a high profile public figure.
    Lastly, I doubt there are any state secrets on there, and if there are, they aren't very important. Important state secrets aren't kept on networks connected to the internet, you need a Snowden with a thumb drive for those to get out.
  12. If you watch the Weiner documentary, you definitely get the sense that they’re not married-married, and (surprising for me because I want to hate her) Huma comes off as a very sympathetic figure. She’s stuck with this narcissistic deviated prevert and really seems to make the best of it with a stiff upper lip and all that. In private she seems positively girly in a charming way, which I did not expect given her close association with uber-shrike HRC. You really do come away feeling that she’s a human being and he’s, well, the other thing. So, part of me hopes that she’s not the lone sacrificial goat who takes the hit for a vast criminal organization.

    • Replies: @Karl
    > Huma comes off as a very sympathetic figure


    well, if people are the average of their 5 closest friends, then I have not much sympathy for Huma Abedin.

    Notwithstanding which, looking at the DETAILS of her transactioning...., she certainly is no mastermind criminal. she's a follower.
    , @Sean
    Maybe not Western married-married. In traditional arranged marriages they have usually fell in love by about a year after they are wed and start having regular sex.
  13. >There is a long history of Europeans using Islamic raiders and invaders as weapons against each other. Most of us know that our first international conflict was the First Barbary War against Muslim slavers and pirates. But it was the British who found it useful to use the Barbary pirates to clear rivals from the water. Louis XIV of France played a similar role in the Battle of Vienna. For that matter the Muslim conquest of the Middle East heavily depended on their exploitation of Christian rivalries.

    Our modern malaise is simply a failure to learn anything useful from history. <

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/10/its-mad-mad-war.html

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    That's why isolationism is a natural turn of events for the USA. Most people are tired of the M.E., and Europe has to solve its own squabbles. I mean, Old Ironsides was a great vessel to destroy the Barbary Coast nasties, but, heck, we have nukes, and, we don't need Europe or the M.E. Everyone wants our soldiers out of the M.E. for good - the national debt is too high - "the rent is too damn high." U.S. needs to rebuild the economy of the Rust-Belt and Plains States. The infrastructure must be rebuilt.
    , @Lot
    Excellent link.
  14. …a strange pairing…

    …the de facto arms-length alliance that has emerged between the Gulf Sunni Arab states and the Jewish state.

    …Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions…

    Do we Americans need to be exposed to this carnival freak show, this Confederacy of Dunces?

    We do not.

    It is well past time to elect leaders who will put Americans first. It is time to turn our backs on the cesspools that our ancestors climbed out of to come here — or the ones our ancestors, and we, never had anything to do with!

    It is time for US to vote.

  15. @whorefinder
    And it was Hillary, by the accounts, that pushed Huma into having a relationship with Mr. Danger. Carlos, being the horndog, was all for it, but Huma (from the stories) was giving off strong "no" vibes----till Sick Hillary shoved them together on the Vineyard one summer/

    Perhaps Hillary convinced Huma that being single AND sleeping in Hillary's bed was far too suspicious, and that Weiner (a former Schumer aide, and rising political star) was a good match/cover for the Saudi Princess.

    Me gets the sense that Hillary "groomed" Huma, in more ways than one.

    P.S. Chuck Schumer had Weiner as his aide and gave him help in his rise in Congress (and in the NYC election he flopped in, IIRC). Perhaps we should start looking at Schumer's other former aides to see if Schumer' judgment was just as bad with them---for example, current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (i.e. Manhattan) Preet Bharara. I wonder if Bharara has any skeletons in his closet like Weiner---maybe they were drinking buddies back in the day? Schumer's penchant for loving the camera seems to have made him choose at least one aide addicted to the camera---both in private and in public. Is Bharara similar? I ask this only because Bharara has done some high-level prosecutions to get his name out there---political prosecutions. Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it's best to know now if he's pulling a Weiner on his wife.

    Don’t know about this, but presumably Bharara is the USA who forwarded the Abedin-Weiner devices and server material located thereon to the FBI and didn’t sit on it. Perhaps he’s eliminating a political rival in NYC? Bharara’s office was Rudy’s stepping stone to the mayoralty of NYC and beyond (had he not screwed it up).

  16. To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes

    Whereas to any normal person Weiner comes across as repellent both in looks and behavior.

    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
    "...to any normal person Weiner comes across as repellent both in looks and behavior."

    As does the Harpy.

    The Harpy's 2016 candidacy is another example of the futility of nominating someone because "it's their turn", like Bob Dole only with multiple felonies.
  17. Oddly prescient:

    Sandy was furious about the muddle in the Near East and the mishandling of Turkey.[....]

    “Lord!” he cried, “how I loathe our new manners in foreign policy. The old English way was to regard all foreigners as slightly childish and rather idiotic and ourselves as the only grown-ups in a kindergarten world. That meant that we had a cool detached view and did even-handed unsympathetic justice. But now we have got into the nursery ourselves and are bear-fighting on the floor. We take violent sides, and make pets, and of course if you are -phil something or other you have got to be -phobe something else. It is all wrong. We are becoming Balkanised.”

    John Buchan, The Three Hostages

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301231h.html#c05

  18. @Anonymous
    Nearly everything we get from the MSM about any of this- Weiner emails, what it means for Hillary, Russian govt are the ones hacking previous emails, etc. is all suspect, frankly. We really can't take any of it at face value. The MSM has been clearly biased towards the Dems, even in collusion with them.

    For all we really know, this could be a scheme to dispel Hillary's felonious email debacle in the eye of the public right before the election- maybe in a few days, they declare that,"hey, her emails on Huma/Weiner's phone were all minor things, so she must've been telling the truth that the other large batch of emails (which she bit-bleached!!!) were about yoga, wedding planning and the like."And such a summary might also allow them to try to diffuse the increasing recognition by the public that the MSM has been colluding with the Dems ("see, we reported on it!").

    This is a popular theory with people who watch too much TV. You don’t help someone by dropping a bomb on their campaign ten days before the election. No amount of exoneration is worth a week of bad coverage before the election.

    This has a Mark Felt vibe to it. The WSJ story about bribing is second in command and now these Wiener docs makes Comey look like an idiot inside the department. They made a fool of him and this is how he is returning the favor. Next week he can stand in front of the press and give a recitation of all the lies they told him.

    In Washington, all politics are personal.

    • Replies: @Nico

    This is a popular theory with people who watch too much TV.
     
    I had the same thoughts as I read the theory. Real life doesn't work like the crime drama scenario Anonymous has suggested.
  19. @George
    "arms-length alliance that has emerged between the Gulf Sunni Arab states and the Jewish state."

    Prophesied as the Hebrab Republic in the 1979 movie Americathon. If the Youngn's want to see America in the 70s, at it's most retarded, including a star studded cast and soundtrack, Americathon is a relatively painless hour or so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqYoB6BLOMw

    http://nightflight.com/americathon-the-prescient-1979-absurd-comedy-that-predicted-americas-unfunny-future/

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

    You don't hear songs about LA anymore

    (Living out in LA) Such A Beautiful Day - Beach Boys
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8YGsoG-12g

    Is that you Priss? Chauncey Gardner of 2016.

  20. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I was thinking something along the lines of Jewish-Muslim interaction in the Mideast has caused endless trouble for both themselves and anyone else in their orbit, and this marriage is doing ditto. It’s like there’s a curse on the two populations that only operates jointly.

    OT: I’m beginning to suspect California is going to vote for Trump, but then legalize pot so the entire state can be stoned throughout his administration, thus avoiding the trouble of actually paying attention to what he does. Heck, when the big earthquake comes, no one’s going to care. More seriously, with the example of Colorado not falling to pieces in front of them, California will almost certainly go for it.

    • Replies: @Nico

    I was thinking something along the lines of Jewish-Muslim interaction in the Mideast has caused endless trouble for both themselves and anyone else in their orbit, and this marriage is doing ditto. It’s like there’s a curse on the two populations that only operates jointly.
     
    My second apartment in Paris was in the 19th district, which by 2008 was neatly on the border between an old Jewish zone and a not-totally-stagnant but not exactly safe, still mostly Muslim zone. My best friend from college remarked, "Somehow, they always manage to find each other!" I quipped, "Yup, just like Brooklyn and Queens!" to which she said, "I was just about to say, 'Brooklyn and Queens'!"

    So it's a thesis that's compelling enough to anyone who's marginally perceptive and who pays attention and isn't brainwashed by The Narrative, at any rate.

  21. @Father O'Hara
    Some Israeli big shot just stated that the recent earthquakes in Italy were God's response to a UN resolution supported by Italy,being mean to Israel for its handling of the Temple Mount. These guys have nuclear bombs??

    Yes, the whole freedom of speech thing means people can say whatever dumb thing they want.

  22. @Anonymous
    Nearly everything we get from the MSM about any of this- Weiner emails, what it means for Hillary, Russian govt are the ones hacking previous emails, etc. is all suspect, frankly. We really can't take any of it at face value. The MSM has been clearly biased towards the Dems, even in collusion with them.

    For all we really know, this could be a scheme to dispel Hillary's felonious email debacle in the eye of the public right before the election- maybe in a few days, they declare that,"hey, her emails on Huma/Weiner's phone were all minor things, so she must've been telling the truth that the other large batch of emails (which she bit-bleached!!!) were about yoga, wedding planning and the like."And such a summary might also allow them to try to diffuse the increasing recognition by the public that the MSM has been colluding with the Dems ("see, we reported on it!").

    That’s a very compelling theory. Scary but sort of the perfect culmination of what Wikileaks has revealed already

  23. @Ivy
    Syrian troubles are over oil pipelines.

    by Gaius Publius

    Summary first: We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    I'm not sure most Americans have figured out what's happening in Syria, because so much of what we hear is confusing to us, and really, we know so little of the context for it. Is it an insurgency against a brutal ruler? Is it a group of insurgencies struggling for power in a nearly failed state? Is it a proxy war expressing the territorial and ideological interests of the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Iran?

    Or something else?

    According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it is something else — a war between competing national interests to build, or not build, a pipeline to the Mediterranean so natural gas can be exported to Europe. Inconveniently for Syria, that nation lies along an obvious pipeline route.

    Which makes it another war between interests for money — something not very hard to understand at all.

    Here's Kennedy's argument via EcoWatch. This is a long piece, well worth a full read, but I'll try to present just the relevant sections here.

    The Historical Context: Decades of CIA-Sponsored Coups and Counter-Coups in Syria

    Kennedy's introductory section contains an excellent examination of the history of U.S. involvement in Syria starting in the 1950s with the Cold War machinations of the Eisenhower-appointed Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. Together, they effectively ruled U.S. foreign policy.

    Kennedy writes (my emphasis):
    Syria: Another Pipeline War

    ... America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

    ... [W]e need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    During the 1950's, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan [sic] Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect."

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.
    Kennedy then details the history of coups and counter-coups in and against Syria, and concludes this section with this:
    Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials.

    The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today." ... A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA's bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

    While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.
    So much for our supposed interest in "humanitarian" intervention in Syria. From a Syrian point of view, it has never been thus. It has been about pipelines since 1949, and they understand that, even if we don't.

    The Current Conflagration

    Kennedy then turns to the present, or the near-present. Refer to the map above as you read:
    A Pipeline War

    In [the Syrians'] view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

    Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

    The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
    Which puts the Qatari pipeline squarely opposite to Russia's national interest — natural gas (methane) sales to Europe.
    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
    That was likely the last straw vis-à-vis the U.S. Which brings us to another pipeline, the so-called "Islamic Pipeline" (see map above):
    "Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    Another, competing pipeline which would run through Syrian territory, but this time carrying Iranian gas instead of Qatari gas. Thus the demonizing of Assad as evil in the mold of Saddam Hussein, instead of just a run-of-the-mill Middle East autocrat, as bad as some but better than others. Kennedy includes a good section on the history of the al-Assad family's rule of Syria, including this information from top reporters Sy Hersh and Robert Parry:
    According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn't beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca." Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis."
    In September 2013, the Sunni states involved in the Qatar-Turkey pipeline were so determined to remove Syrian opposition to the pipeline that they offered, via John Kerry, to carry the whole cost of an U.S. invasion to topple al-Assad.
    Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
    Obama's response:
    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
    The rest is a history of provocation and over-reaction — a great deal of both — and chaos and death in Syria. Kennedy provides much detail here, at one point adding:
    [Syria's] moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
    I'll leave it there, but again, do read the entire piece if you want to truly understand what's going on in Syria, and what is about to go on.

    Bottom Line

    Bottom line, it's as Kennedy said: "No one wants to die for a pipeline" ... but many do and will.

    I'll offer three thoughts. One, if we weren't so determined to be deeply dependent on fossil fuels, this would be their war, not ours. Two, we are deeply dependent on fossil fuels because of the political machinations of the oil companies, their CEOs, and the banks and hedge funds who fund them, all of whom pay our government officials — via campaign contributions and the revolving door — to prolong that dependence. We're here because the holders of big oil money want us here.

    And three, keep all this in mind during the term of the next president. It will help you make sense of the phony warrior-cum-humanitarian arguments we're almost certain to be subjected to.

    We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    Economic determinst arguments are always trotted out to explain these geo-political events. While they are not irrelevant, they do not necessarily explain everything. Remember back in 2002-2003, when a lot of people were pushing the idea that the war in Afghanistan was over a proposed pipeline. Well, the war isn’t over, and there is still no pipeline. A country riven by civil war and crazy head-chopping-off-jihadists sounds like a lousy place to build a pipeline that could easily be sabotaged. Why not just build it via a different route? Through Turkey? Through Jordan and Israel? Through Saudi Arabia?

    “According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr……”

    And that is supposed to be an authoritative source? I haven’t noticed that the third-generation Kennedys are very bright or adept at much of anything.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    The Afghan pipeline never seemed plausible however the Russian involvement and the recent KSA and Iranian oil price actions indicate that oil plays a large role in all of those country policies. The issue has merit regardless of one's thoughts about RFK Jr.
  24. Anthony Weiner called out in Orthodox Jewish Brooklyn. It’s hard not to have sympathy for Huma.

    • Replies: @eah
    It’s hard not to have sympathy for Huma.

    You've got to be kidding man -- hello?! -- she's giving her all trying to get that wretched HRC elected POTUS -- isn't that reason enough to have no sympathy whatsoever for her? -- not to mention she may have committed perjury earlier.

    , @J1234
    I admire that guy for calling out Anthony. But there is no shaming such an arrogant person. I predict Anthony will have his own Jerry Springer type show (after he gets out of jail.)

    As to the whole Comey blowup, it's nice to have the media shut down their hyper hysteria machine for a few days. Warning to fellow Trump supporters, though: don't start doing victory laps just yet...that's what Hillary was doing last week and it didn't turn out so well.

  25. Service to the Muslim Brotherhood means that a woman may have to do many distasteful things for the sake of Allah.

  26. I really wonder about Hillary’s judgment. I’m not sure I would want her taking that 3:00 AM phone call on behalf of the American people.

    Not just Weiner, but the Mezvinkys, too. Dad was a Nigerian scammer or something, and son lost the hedge fund on bad bets.

    Maybe her peculiar relationship with Bill causes her to push these people on the ones she loves.

    I have no idea.

  27. @Ivy
    Syrian troubles are over oil pipelines.

    by Gaius Publius

    Summary first: We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    I'm not sure most Americans have figured out what's happening in Syria, because so much of what we hear is confusing to us, and really, we know so little of the context for it. Is it an insurgency against a brutal ruler? Is it a group of insurgencies struggling for power in a nearly failed state? Is it a proxy war expressing the territorial and ideological interests of the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Iran?

    Or something else?

    According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it is something else — a war between competing national interests to build, or not build, a pipeline to the Mediterranean so natural gas can be exported to Europe. Inconveniently for Syria, that nation lies along an obvious pipeline route.

    Which makes it another war between interests for money — something not very hard to understand at all.

    Here's Kennedy's argument via EcoWatch. This is a long piece, well worth a full read, but I'll try to present just the relevant sections here.

    The Historical Context: Decades of CIA-Sponsored Coups and Counter-Coups in Syria

    Kennedy's introductory section contains an excellent examination of the history of U.S. involvement in Syria starting in the 1950s with the Cold War machinations of the Eisenhower-appointed Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. Together, they effectively ruled U.S. foreign policy.

    Kennedy writes (my emphasis):
    Syria: Another Pipeline War

    ... America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

    ... [W]e need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    During the 1950's, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan [sic] Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect."

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.
    Kennedy then details the history of coups and counter-coups in and against Syria, and concludes this section with this:
    Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials.

    The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today." ... A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA's bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

    While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.
    So much for our supposed interest in "humanitarian" intervention in Syria. From a Syrian point of view, it has never been thus. It has been about pipelines since 1949, and they understand that, even if we don't.

    The Current Conflagration

    Kennedy then turns to the present, or the near-present. Refer to the map above as you read:
    A Pipeline War

    In [the Syrians'] view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

    Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

    The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
    Which puts the Qatari pipeline squarely opposite to Russia's national interest — natural gas (methane) sales to Europe.
    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
    That was likely the last straw vis-à-vis the U.S. Which brings us to another pipeline, the so-called "Islamic Pipeline" (see map above):
    "Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    Another, competing pipeline which would run through Syrian territory, but this time carrying Iranian gas instead of Qatari gas. Thus the demonizing of Assad as evil in the mold of Saddam Hussein, instead of just a run-of-the-mill Middle East autocrat, as bad as some but better than others. Kennedy includes a good section on the history of the al-Assad family's rule of Syria, including this information from top reporters Sy Hersh and Robert Parry:
    According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn't beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca." Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis."
    In September 2013, the Sunni states involved in the Qatar-Turkey pipeline were so determined to remove Syrian opposition to the pipeline that they offered, via John Kerry, to carry the whole cost of an U.S. invasion to topple al-Assad.
    Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
    Obama's response:
    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
    The rest is a history of provocation and over-reaction — a great deal of both — and chaos and death in Syria. Kennedy provides much detail here, at one point adding:
    [Syria's] moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
    I'll leave it there, but again, do read the entire piece if you want to truly understand what's going on in Syria, and what is about to go on.

    Bottom Line

    Bottom line, it's as Kennedy said: "No one wants to die for a pipeline" ... but many do and will.

    I'll offer three thoughts. One, if we weren't so determined to be deeply dependent on fossil fuels, this would be their war, not ours. Two, we are deeply dependent on fossil fuels because of the political machinations of the oil companies, their CEOs, and the banks and hedge funds who fund them, all of whom pay our government officials — via campaign contributions and the revolving door — to prolong that dependence. We're here because the holders of big oil money want us here.

    And three, keep all this in mind during the term of the next president. It will help you make sense of the phony warrior-cum-humanitarian arguments we're almost certain to be subjected to.

    We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    It’s nuts to say our usage of fossil fuels is optional and due only to the foot-dragging sponsored by the oil companies. The fact is, fossil fuel, including natural gas, is the most efficient, and throwing billions of dollars of government subsidies at “clean energy alternatives” will not do anything except increase the national debt.

    Having said that, the US is easily independent of political ramifications of Middle Eastern oil. North America produces more oil than Saudia Arabia, natural gas and coal are plentiful, and approving the keystone pipeline would make domestically-produced fossil energy even more available. So, even the worst scenario, a Middle Eastern effective boycott, would not have strategic implications, but would at most increase the price of oil and gas moderately.

    If the report is true, that Obama resisted the pressure from Republicans to invade Syria, I have a new-found respect for Obama and continue to hope that Trump considers himself completely separate from the Republican establishment.

    Also, the US can be supportive of Israel vis a vis UN and EU boycotts and one-sided resolutions, but does not need to ally itself with Israel foreign policy. Israel has its own, legitimate interests, which may not coincide with the US. Israel should go its own way, without the collaboration of the CIA. Israel has direct security interests as a neighbor of a hostile Syria and Iran, but it is up to Israel, and not the US, to best protect Israel’s vital security.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    US trading partners like Japan and Europe, for example, are more exposed since they do not have the US domestic production capacity, and material disruptions to ME oil supply would set off worldwide economic troubles. Either pipeline would be a relief and a risk, with cheaper supply, but with potential shut offs like the Russian gas pipeline to EU a few years ago. The world is oil dependent, some countries more than others.
    , @PV van der Byl
    Amen, amen, amen.

    Frac, frac, frac.

    Apply Daniel Patrick's notion of "benign neglect" to the Middle East.

    Israel will do just fine. They certainly did before the US extended significant help in 1968.

    Arabs should just focus on not digging themselves into deeper holes.

    If that requires redrawing borders in places like Syria, so be it.
  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/emails-clinton-campaign-dismissed-concerns-embattled-theranos-ceo/

    Emails: Clinton Campaign Dismissed Concerns Over Embattled Theranos CEO

    …Democratic mega-donor Herb Sandler warned campaign chairman John Podesta against holding campaign events with Holmes.

    “There are significant questions concerning Holmes and her company,” Sandler wrote in an email. “She may come out all right, but it is certainly possible that everyone associated with her venture will be embarrassed.”

    Podesta forwarded the email to Clinton campaign finance chairman Dennis Cheng, who dismissed Sandler’s concerns.

    “We vetted her and her company and also raised it to Chelsea’s team—as of now, everyone is still comfortable with her,” Cheng wrote.

    The event occurred a week later, though its location was changed from the Theranos offices to Holmes’ private home. She was pictured beside Chelsea Clinton she addressed attendees.

  29. @Ivy
    Syrian troubles are over oil pipelines.

    by Gaius Publius

    Summary first: We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    I'm not sure most Americans have figured out what's happening in Syria, because so much of what we hear is confusing to us, and really, we know so little of the context for it. Is it an insurgency against a brutal ruler? Is it a group of insurgencies struggling for power in a nearly failed state? Is it a proxy war expressing the territorial and ideological interests of the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Iran?

    Or something else?

    According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it is something else — a war between competing national interests to build, or not build, a pipeline to the Mediterranean so natural gas can be exported to Europe. Inconveniently for Syria, that nation lies along an obvious pipeline route.

    Which makes it another war between interests for money — something not very hard to understand at all.

    Here's Kennedy's argument via EcoWatch. This is a long piece, well worth a full read, but I'll try to present just the relevant sections here.

    The Historical Context: Decades of CIA-Sponsored Coups and Counter-Coups in Syria

    Kennedy's introductory section contains an excellent examination of the history of U.S. involvement in Syria starting in the 1950s with the Cold War machinations of the Eisenhower-appointed Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. Together, they effectively ruled U.S. foreign policy.

    Kennedy writes (my emphasis):
    Syria: Another Pipeline War

    ... America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

    ... [W]e need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    During the 1950's, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan [sic] Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect."

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.
    Kennedy then details the history of coups and counter-coups in and against Syria, and concludes this section with this:
    Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials.

    The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today." ... A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA's bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

    While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.
    So much for our supposed interest in "humanitarian" intervention in Syria. From a Syrian point of view, it has never been thus. It has been about pipelines since 1949, and they understand that, even if we don't.

    The Current Conflagration

    Kennedy then turns to the present, or the near-present. Refer to the map above as you read:
    A Pipeline War

    In [the Syrians'] view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

    Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

    The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
    Which puts the Qatari pipeline squarely opposite to Russia's national interest — natural gas (methane) sales to Europe.
    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
    That was likely the last straw vis-à-vis the U.S. Which brings us to another pipeline, the so-called "Islamic Pipeline" (see map above):
    "Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    Another, competing pipeline which would run through Syrian territory, but this time carrying Iranian gas instead of Qatari gas. Thus the demonizing of Assad as evil in the mold of Saddam Hussein, instead of just a run-of-the-mill Middle East autocrat, as bad as some but better than others. Kennedy includes a good section on the history of the al-Assad family's rule of Syria, including this information from top reporters Sy Hersh and Robert Parry:
    According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn't beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca." Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis."
    In September 2013, the Sunni states involved in the Qatar-Turkey pipeline were so determined to remove Syrian opposition to the pipeline that they offered, via John Kerry, to carry the whole cost of an U.S. invasion to topple al-Assad.
    Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
    Obama's response:
    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
    The rest is a history of provocation and over-reaction — a great deal of both — and chaos and death in Syria. Kennedy provides much detail here, at one point adding:
    [Syria's] moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
    I'll leave it there, but again, do read the entire piece if you want to truly understand what's going on in Syria, and what is about to go on.

    Bottom Line

    Bottom line, it's as Kennedy said: "No one wants to die for a pipeline" ... but many do and will.

    I'll offer three thoughts. One, if we weren't so determined to be deeply dependent on fossil fuels, this would be their war, not ours. Two, we are deeply dependent on fossil fuels because of the political machinations of the oil companies, their CEOs, and the banks and hedge funds who fund them, all of whom pay our government officials — via campaign contributions and the revolving door — to prolong that dependence. We're here because the holders of big oil money want us here.

    And three, keep all this in mind during the term of the next president. It will help you make sense of the phony warrior-cum-humanitarian arguments we're almost certain to be subjected to.

    We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    Whoa. Thank you, Ivy, for condensing something that is so worrisome and potentially devastating. It is always about money and control. I remember hearing about the pipeline being the only reason that the Russians went to Afghanistan.

  30. @whorefinder
    And it was Hillary, by the accounts, that pushed Huma into having a relationship with Mr. Danger. Carlos, being the horndog, was all for it, but Huma (from the stories) was giving off strong "no" vibes----till Sick Hillary shoved them together on the Vineyard one summer/

    Perhaps Hillary convinced Huma that being single AND sleeping in Hillary's bed was far too suspicious, and that Weiner (a former Schumer aide, and rising political star) was a good match/cover for the Saudi Princess.

    Me gets the sense that Hillary "groomed" Huma, in more ways than one.

    P.S. Chuck Schumer had Weiner as his aide and gave him help in his rise in Congress (and in the NYC election he flopped in, IIRC). Perhaps we should start looking at Schumer's other former aides to see if Schumer' judgment was just as bad with them---for example, current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (i.e. Manhattan) Preet Bharara. I wonder if Bharara has any skeletons in his closet like Weiner---maybe they were drinking buddies back in the day? Schumer's penchant for loving the camera seems to have made him choose at least one aide addicted to the camera---both in private and in public. Is Bharara similar? I ask this only because Bharara has done some high-level prosecutions to get his name out there---political prosecutions. Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it's best to know now if he's pulling a Weiner on his wife.

    Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it’s best to know now if he’s pulling a Weiner on his wife.

    His wife, Dalya Bharara, has a Muslim father and a Jewish mother. There seems to be little public information on her other than that, and that she is a “non-practising lawyer”.

    Preet Bharara is following the path that Rudy Guiliani took as US attorney for the Southern District, and Eliot Spitzer did as New York State Attorney, in prosecuting high profile cases (some on Wall Street) in establishing a public identity as a results oriented, hard charging defender of the public.

    I’m not sure what political office Bharara aspires to. He is foreign born, so it is probably Governor or Mayor, or possibly Senator.

    His brother made a half-billion dollars from selling a dotcom to Amazon. He has stated that he had a meaningful chunk of equity in it, though I doubt he could self-finance a run for office in New York, where political races are expensive.

    I don’t know how big an Indian-American electorate there is in New York, but going by the comments on various online articles about him, they hate his guts—they seem to think he is an Uncle Tom figure. Apparently, this is because some of the targets of his high profile prosecutions were from the old country, and they figure he went after them simply to establish that he was fully assimilated.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Preet has put more Wall Street crooks in jail than any US Attorney since Rudy. He would be a better mayor or governor of NY than any of the normal NY politicians.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    some of the targets of his high profile prosecutions were from the old country, and they figure he went after them simply to establish that he was fully assimilated.
     
    Two disgusting conclusions: (1) it takes an outsider to go after them, and (2) Indian-Americans don't think assimilation is a positive.

    Even if we shut down immigration, what do we do about (1)?
  31. @George
    "arms-length alliance that has emerged between the Gulf Sunni Arab states and the Jewish state."

    Prophesied as the Hebrab Republic in the 1979 movie Americathon. If the Youngn's want to see America in the 70s, at it's most retarded, including a star studded cast and soundtrack, Americathon is a relatively painless hour or so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqYoB6BLOMw

    http://nightflight.com/americathon-the-prescient-1979-absurd-comedy-that-predicted-americas-unfunny-future/

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

    You don't hear songs about LA anymore

    (Living out in LA) Such A Beautiful Day - Beach Boys
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8YGsoG-12g

    It’s interesting how bad TV was back in the 70s.

  32. Weiner looks pretty happy on that Post cover. Still, Bill and Weiner are a pretty strong sign that modern feminism has quit the old-school ‘Men must be kept up to the mark!’

    >’Hillary’s desire to cause more destruction in Syria. ‘
    I can see why normal country Russia would send a Navy fleet to back its Navy base in Syria. Okay, US interests are different from Russia’s. But I have yet to read a grownup write- ‘Here is why Normal Country Russia is out of line in the way it is defending its Syrese Navy base by defending Syria’s dictator. Here is America’s interest.’
    Just see venona-transcript legacy media pretending it hated Stalin.

  33. @Yak-15
    I heard from a wise friend that Huma and Antony are still married only to prevent testimony on one another.

    My prediction: there is some bad shit linking Huma to Saudi Arabian machinations, money, Clinton Foundation,money, Qatar, icing Assad, money, pipeline to EU, throw in uranium deals, money…etc, through the smart phones of Weiner & Huma. Let’s face it, anyone over 35 is just not as aware about how the internet works (how hacking is such a weapon against people who must keep up appearances) as Clinton & C0…or really, anyone 35+. Huma is compromised – she got sloppy, and now the damage control is out of control. I smell some bad news coming from this, but Weiner is not even central to it. The fact that they didn’t get a speedy divorce will hurt her even more. Huma is clearly hiding something…and the ties go to the Middle East, and all the mess and body bags that the American People have had to face for almost 15 years now. Yeah, isolationism is just the natural thing to turn to now. Let the M.E. solve their squabbles. No more war.

  34. I never thought the pairing was odd at all. Hillary needed for Huma to have a beard to dispel stories about her and Huma having a lesbian affair and Huma being a kept woman.

    Enter the patsy, one Mr. Weiner, a ambitious, stupid and relatively clueless man desperate to climb the political ladder. Then installed in a lifeless and probably sexless marriage – everything goes well until he cracks.

    Oh I doubt she could do any better in terms of a fake mate for a multitude of reasons. Most men simply have more self-respect than that, and simply sell out the old fashioned way to some monied interest so he gets the bucks and bimbos.

    In religious terms, her fanatical family allowed it for one reason – it gave the KSA/MB direct intel as to what is happening in one of the most powerful families in D.C. For all intents she’s a Mata Hari. Otherwise she’d be found strangled to death in her parents home like so many other Muslima who stray.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    They have a child.
  35. Meanwhile, Hillary’s house negro’s are MORTIFIED and OUTRAGED:

    https://www.facebook.com/NBC4Columbus/videos/10153850714937751/

  36. Yeah, we live in a nation of bread and circuses. But man, this circus has been entertaining as hell this last election cycle!

    Quis Commodum nostrum erit?

  37. Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine. I know that distresses you guys but the only problem people are white Christians

    Clinton will win the election in a landslide

    • Troll: Federalist
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine."

    Yeah, that whole Israel/Palestine thing is just a friendly spat.
    , @Lyov Myshkin
    @Luke Sellers

    I know that distresses you guys but the only problem people are white Christians

     

    Do you mean the 'problem' of them building such great societies that all of the Earth's garbage just has to try to live with them?
    , @antipater_1
    Tiny Duck!! You are back!
    , @L Woods
    Hi Tiny Duck.
  38. I think a big part of Hillary’s problem is, thanks to the constant pounding from her husband, she’s become tone-deaf to perversion. Most people don’t have husband’s like her, or Abedin.

    If Hillary had a lick of sense, she would have cut Abedin loose the moment it was disclosed that her pervert husband was in trouble AGAIN. It means the man is out of his fucking mind, and his wife is in denial. Because of this, she’s bound to get his crazy all over her, and her boss, at the worst moment. That’s what crazy spouses do.

    Abedin’s apparent defense during her FBI interview of “I’m just a goofy chick. I don’t get this computer stuff,” won’t flush when she’s the right-hand woman of a presidential contender. Now, at the very least, Hillary’s election bowl is backing up all over the both of them:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/huma-abedin-swore-under-oath-she-gave-up-all-the-devices-containing-state-department-emails.html

    The clear question, with what we can fairly surmise now is, if Abedin was in violation, is Hillary also in violation as her boss?

    • Replies: @Boomstick
    Part of the problem is that Abedin is romantically linked to Hillary. The inclination is to not fire your spouse, even if they are a screw-up, and this complicates efficient policy and administration and tangles lines of authority.

    It would surprise me not at all if Huma is a dangle by an Arab intelligence service of some sort, btw.
    , @Bugg
    Abedin's immunity agreement required to turn over all her devices. And that's where things went to hell.

    Dealt with the FBI professionally. Frankly found them to be very impressed with themselves; Famous But Incompetent. But for being able to charge people with making false statements to them(something no local and state law enforcement can do) their investigators are nothing special. Forensic testing and IT stuff, they are among the best. But shoe leather detective work, not so much. In fact on a whole host of high profile cases, they dropped the ball. The Boston Marathon bombing case official story is an embarrassment from beginning to end. Add that to the John Connolly/Whitey Bulger, Greg Scarpa/Lin DelVecchio, "solving" Flight 800 with a cartoon, the complete noninvestigations before Major Hassan, San Bernandino., Orlando, you have a agency that is hurting. There are no doubt some long term career agents that view the Hillary mess as another loss. Obama has probably sent many of those guys into retirement with his PC multi culti nonsense, but not all. And allowing the Clinton machine to run the show right over them had to be a bitter pill.

    They also see the writing on the wall of perps invoking a Hillary-style "didn't mean it!" defense and not liking that at all. Comey said essentially Hillary did not intend to commit a crime, which is laughable. Moreso when the very statute has a negligence intent element.

    Said old timers were looking for in an in to right this wrong. NYPD on the ground has many cops working in task forces with FBI guys. And suspect the latest bigfooting of the NY FBI office by AG Lynch to indict Pantaleo in the Eric Garner case after they had already decided not to indict was the latest example of Obama DoJ pissing off the old school in local law enforcement and FBI. Likely timeline; NYPD and NC police on the Weiner case get Weiner's computer for his latest dick pic fiasco and tell their FBI counterparts. Old timers, overjoyed with another shot, approach Comey with this new evidence of the emails and Abedin's knowing violation of her immunity agreement. Comey, already facing a large scale mutiny among his rank and file along with his name being besmirched, had little choice but to reopen. And there has to be some serious bad stuff to justify the reopen. Because the Clinton machine and Obama are playing for keeps. Comey now has significant body parts in harm's way.

    Awfully rich Hillary demanded Comey release all the emails. You don't say?
  39. Apropos of Comey’s decision to go public with the reopening of the case against Hillary, and, apparently, against standard protocol and the urging of Loretta Lynch, I think the interpretation that makes most sense by far is the obvious one: the FBI has found something very significant in those emails, and he couldn’t justify doing anything else.

    In the end, Comey has got to be concerned fundamentally with his own reputation. Suppose he believed that, in fact, in the end, these emails might well turn out to be nothing of consequence. Yet he has now violated the standard protocols and the DOJ admonishments, and has turned the election against Hillary at a critical juncture. Under those circumstances, when the day would arrive that the concern with the emails was dismissed, he would never be able to recover his reputation–he would become a legendary object of scorn. I just don’t see how a man in Comey’s position would ever take those steps.

    People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move, even though he knows that the emails are likely not significant. But the one thing that he won’t be able to do in either of those scenarios is save his own reputation — he will be demonized forever over any such clear chicanery. Nothing could make this worthwhile for a man in his position.

    I infer from all this that Comey must believe that there are smoking guns in this batch of emails, and that the case for illegality is very strong. That is his only way out of this mess with his reputation intact.

    Hillary and the Democrats are of course now calling for further explanations and justifications.

    My advice to them: be careful what you wish for.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/792525927032852481

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html

    Maybe the simplest explanation is best: he doesn't know what the e-mails are about, but if they turned out to be explosive he would be excoriated for not saying anything -- and if they turn out to be nothing, well, he only said that he needed to "supplement the record" that the investigation isn't over yet.

    , @Boomstick
    "People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move "

    Notice the rise of Turkish/Byzantine conspiracy thinking in US politics?
    , @Federalist
    It could be anything but this makes the most sense to me. This definetly does not help Hillary. If Comey really wanted to help Trump he shouldn't have let the issue drop and provide Hillary cover to begin with. Sure, the Attorney General would gave refused to prosecute but the FBI is well regarded and gives the appearance of being unbiased. For a lot of people, when the FBI says it's not a big deal, that's good enough. If the new emails don't reveal something very significant, why not keep quiet? Comey will look ridiculous if there is nothing to it. If it's big and he says nothing, it looks like he's covering it up. A bombshell revelation, even if it comes after the election will shut up a lot of the criticism he is facing now.
  40. @Bruce
    Weiner looks pretty happy on that Post cover. Still, Bill and Weiner are a pretty strong sign that modern feminism has quit the old-school 'Men must be kept up to the mark!'

    >'Hillary's desire to cause more destruction in Syria. '
    I can see why normal country Russia would send a Navy fleet to back its Navy base in Syria. Okay, US interests are different from Russia's. But I have yet to read a grownup write- 'Here is why Normal Country Russia is out of line in the way it is defending its Syrese Navy base by defending Syria's dictator. Here is America's interest.'
    Just see venona-transcript legacy media pretending it hated Stalin.
    • Replies: @Bruce
    eah-'Russia and Syria have been allies for decades -Treaty of Friendship-'

    No friendship between nations, just interests. Russia has a permanent interest in a Navy base in the Eastern Med: either Greece or Turkey could close the straits with one howitzer battalion. Or anyone else could close them with one merchant ship dropping smart mines off its bottom.

    'whom does the US support? and why?'

    Apparently we support ISIS to trash Syria. Why? Our post-sixties governing class is incompetent, corrupt, and faithless, so who knows. But we are Israel's ally, and Syria can never be cool with Israel holding the Golan Heights. Not just artillery range of Damascus, it's line-of-sight tank gun range of Damascus. Israel can't give the Golan back, because it's not just artillery range of Tel Aviv, it's line-of-sight tank gun range of Tel Aviv. Permanent interests. Of course it's only a problem till Arabs and Jews stop feuding.
  41. @newrouter
    >There is a long history of Europeans using Islamic raiders and invaders as weapons against each other. Most of us know that our first international conflict was the First Barbary War against Muslim slavers and pirates. But it was the British who found it useful to use the Barbary pirates to clear rivals from the water. Louis XIV of France played a similar role in the Battle of Vienna. For that matter the Muslim conquest of the Middle East heavily depended on their exploitation of Christian rivalries.

    Our modern malaise is simply a failure to learn anything useful from history. <

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/10/its-mad-mad-war.html

    That’s why isolationism is a natural turn of events for the USA. Most people are tired of the M.E., and Europe has to solve its own squabbles. I mean, Old Ironsides was a great vessel to destroy the Barbary Coast nasties, but, heck, we have nukes, and, we don’t need Europe or the M.E. Everyone wants our soldiers out of the M.E. for good – the national debt is too high – “the rent is too damn high.” U.S. needs to rebuild the economy of the Rust-Belt and Plains States. The infrastructure must be rebuilt.

  42. @newrouter
    >There is a long history of Europeans using Islamic raiders and invaders as weapons against each other. Most of us know that our first international conflict was the First Barbary War against Muslim slavers and pirates. But it was the British who found it useful to use the Barbary pirates to clear rivals from the water. Louis XIV of France played a similar role in the Battle of Vienna. For that matter the Muslim conquest of the Middle East heavily depended on their exploitation of Christian rivalries.

    Our modern malaise is simply a failure to learn anything useful from history. <

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2016/10/its-mad-mad-war.html

    Excellent link.

  43. @PiltdownMan

    Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it’s best to know now if he’s pulling a Weiner on his wife.
     
    His wife, Dalya Bharara, has a Muslim father and a Jewish mother. There seems to be little public information on her other than that, and that she is a "non-practising lawyer".

    Preet Bharara is following the path that Rudy Guiliani took as US attorney for the Southern District, and Eliot Spitzer did as New York State Attorney, in prosecuting high profile cases (some on Wall Street) in establishing a public identity as a results oriented, hard charging defender of the public.

    I'm not sure what political office Bharara aspires to. He is foreign born, so it is probably Governor or Mayor, or possibly Senator.

    His brother made a half-billion dollars from selling a dotcom to Amazon. He has stated that he had a meaningful chunk of equity in it, though I doubt he could self-finance a run for office in New York, where political races are expensive.

    I don't know how big an Indian-American electorate there is in New York, but going by the comments on various online articles about him, they hate his guts—they seem to think he is an Uncle Tom figure. Apparently, this is because some of the targets of his high profile prosecutions were from the old country, and they figure he went after them simply to establish that he was fully assimilated.

    Preet has put more Wall Street crooks in jail than any US Attorney since Rudy. He would be a better mayor or governor of NY than any of the normal NY politicians.

    • Replies: @Thea
    Is it possible that democrats are actually the one trying to take her down?
  44. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @candid_observer
    Apropos of Comey's decision to go public with the reopening of the case against Hillary, and, apparently, against standard protocol and the urging of Loretta Lynch, I think the interpretation that makes most sense by far is the obvious one: the FBI has found something very significant in those emails, and he couldn't justify doing anything else.

    In the end, Comey has got to be concerned fundamentally with his own reputation. Suppose he believed that, in fact, in the end, these emails might well turn out to be nothing of consequence. Yet he has now violated the standard protocols and the DOJ admonishments, and has turned the election against Hillary at a critical juncture. Under those circumstances, when the day would arrive that the concern with the emails was dismissed, he would never be able to recover his reputation--he would become a legendary object of scorn. I just don't see how a man in Comey's position would ever take those steps.

    People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move, even though he knows that the emails are likely not significant. But the one thing that he won't be able to do in either of those scenarios is save his own reputation -- he will be demonized forever over any such clear chicanery. Nothing could make this worthwhile for a man in his position.

    I infer from all this that Comey must believe that there are smoking guns in this batch of emails, and that the case for illegality is very strong. That is his only way out of this mess with his reputation intact.

    Hillary and the Democrats are of course now calling for further explanations and justifications.

    My advice to them: be careful what you wish for.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html

    Maybe the simplest explanation is best: he doesn’t know what the e-mails are about, but if they turned out to be explosive he would be excoriated for not saying anything — and if they turn out to be nothing, well, he only said that he needed to “supplement the record” that the investigation isn’t over yet.

    • Replies: @Anon
    And we all know the FBI wouldn't dare trample on the constitutional rights of Americans. Of course they read them.
    , @candid_observer
    My guess is that the FBI may well be able to make reasonable inferences about those emails even without a warrant.

    They could ask Weiner about them, for example -- who would have every incentive to be cooperative. Even to determine whose emails they were, and that an additional warrant was required, they would have to know something about them. They might have metadata on them allowing them to match or not match them up with previous emails. It's not in any way obvious to an outsider just what one needs a warrant for under these circumstances, and how much information may be obtained in its absence. They've got the laptop. The emails are presumably stored on them. They can count the number of the emails. They may well have the password. What they already know may be enough to infer the existence of a smoking gun, especially since Abedin had declared that she had turned in all relevant devices. Frankly, one possibility is that they delved into some of the emails without a warrant, perhaps not even realizing at first they might need one. (Of course this might raise the issue of whether those particular emails can be used in court. I don't see though how it would taint all of the emails, since that search would certainly have been conducted in the end.)

    And of course a very real additional possibility is that it's the Justice Department itself that is obstructing justice here, by slow walking the process of getting a warrant. How hard should this be if they have any sense of urgency? One wonders if part of the motivation for Comey to go to Congress about it was to stop such obstruction.

    But I repeat my basic point: the correct way to think about what Comey did is to see it as his attempt to preserve his reputation. That he chose to do this despite all of the reasons not to do it at this stage, and against the warnings of the DOJ demonstrates the depth of his concern about what is in those emails.

  45. @Luke Sellers
    Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine. I know that distresses you guys but the only problem people are white Christians

    Clinton will win the election in a landslide

    “Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine.”

    Yeah, that whole Israel/Palestine thing is just a friendly spat.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Pfft
    , @CK
    More in the nature of a cousinly quarrel.
  46. @Rod1963
    I never thought the pairing was odd at all. Hillary needed for Huma to have a beard to dispel stories about her and Huma having a lesbian affair and Huma being a kept woman.

    Enter the patsy, one Mr. Weiner, a ambitious, stupid and relatively clueless man desperate to climb the political ladder. Then installed in a lifeless and probably sexless marriage - everything goes well until he cracks.

    Oh I doubt she could do any better in terms of a fake mate for a multitude of reasons. Most men simply have more self-respect than that, and simply sell out the old fashioned way to some monied interest so he gets the bucks and bimbos.

    In religious terms, her fanatical family allowed it for one reason - it gave the KSA/MB direct intel as to what is happening in one of the most powerful families in D.C. For all intents she's a Mata Hari. Otherwise she'd be found strangled to death in her parents home like so many other Muslima who stray.

    They have a child.

    • Replies: @Nico
    I'm still not sure what to make of the Sappho thesis, but this wouldn't be the first marriage in which a homosexual produced a child or even many children. How much sex went on outside of deliberately procreative moments is another question.
    , @CK
    A better beard than merely having a paper spouse.
    , @bored identity
    Carlos Danger should have known better for at least two reasons:

    1.) 'Humanthonazing' both Jewish and Muslim communities while trying to politically empower yourself through an arranged ecumenical wedlock is never good idea.

    2.) With Billary being your designated shidduch provider, accepting Huma Mahmood Abedin's role of perfect sham fatale will certainly end with devastating post-connubial consequences for your lecherous libido.

    Sooner or later you'll have to wake up and smell the lavender!
    , @Anonymous
    So do Hillary and Bill. How much sex has occurred between them in their marriage?
  47. This election is better than watching sport.

    This may seem like a strange pairing, but one of the little remarked developments of recent years is the de facto arms-length alliance that has emerged between the Gulf Sunni Arab states and the Jewish state.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quQArlckTS4

    Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia
  48. The leading tory on Google News right now is one from the Washington Post headlined “Trump’s bizarre claim that the Clinton email controversy is bigger than Watergate.”

    A story that should utterly destroy Clinton’s chances at winning is somehow spun into a story against Trump. Only in today’s MSM.

  49. @Mr. Anon
    "Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine."

    Yeah, that whole Israel/Palestine thing is just a friendly spat.

    Pfft

  50. @Clifford Brown
    Anthony Weiner called out in Orthodox Jewish Brooklyn. It's hard not to have sympathy for Huma.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMtjc_X58T0

    It’s hard not to have sympathy for Huma.

    You’ve got to be kidding man — hello?! — she’s giving her all trying to get that wretched HRC elected POTUS — isn’t that reason enough to have no sympathy whatsoever for her? — not to mention she may have committed perjury earlier.

    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/_Proud_American/status/772282195838763008
  51. @Anon
    Maybe sexting is really diplomacy by other means.

    Btw...

    Is this real?

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

    From description:

    "According to a startling Pentagon video obtained by The Intercept, the future of global cities will be an amalgam of the settings of "Escape from New York" and "Robocop" — with dashes of the "Warriors" and "Divergent" thrown in. It will be a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers."

    ------------------

    "To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes, they seem like two kids who give you hope in a glorious future in which Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions to the Clinton Foundation."

    This sounds like an orgy.

    The US military has been thinking about insurgencies in urban areas for decades. Back in the 50′s and 60′s the decisive military terrain was out in rural areas. Everyone worried about land reform and strategic hamlets and winning the hearts and minds of rural peasants, because rural areas was where most of the population was. During the 70′s and 80′s the world changed as the population shifted to the cities. Now we have megacities like Sao Paulo, Cairo, or Lagos. Even in nations that lack megacities the population is almost always urban rather than rural. In a war the decisive terrain will be in urban areas, because that’s where the population is.

    As much as the US military would like to fight a war out in the open desert where they can blast the conventional forces of a state adversary, the enemy is not likely to oblige. So the Army and USMC have to learn how to fight low intensity wars in urban areas.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    They really ought to read descriptions of the Battle of Stalingrad. Theodor Plevier's novel of the same name, or War of the Rats, or Anthony Bevor's book. There are others; it appears that Stalingrad was as close to hell on earth as anyone's ever likely to see, and that was between regular armies with chains of command. I'm very skeptical any meaningful victory is possible in a mega-city.
  52. @Pat Hannagan
    This election is better than watching sport.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbIV05QUR9Y

    This may seem like a strange pairing, but one of the little remarked developments of recent years is the de facto arms-length alliance that has emerged between the Gulf Sunni Arab states and the Jewish state.

    Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia

    Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia

    • Replies: @Yngvar
    The The is God.
  53. @Father O'Hara
    Some Israeli big shot just stated that the recent earthquakes in Italy were God's response to a UN resolution supported by Italy,being mean to Israel for its handling of the Temple Mount. These guys have nuclear bombs??

    He’s not a “big shot”, he’s a member of parliament and he’s only that because he’s a Druze benefiting from AA (what?!? you mean Ayoub Kara isn’t a Jewish name!). Moreover, his objection was that Italy supported a farcical resolution that, among other Kafakaesque details, denies Jewish and CHRISTIAN connections to the Temple Mount.

    This happens to be a sore point for me. I’ve visited the Temple Mount twice, as is my right under the “status quo”. Before going up you get searched twice, once for weapons and once for prayer articles – they open your wallet to check you haven’t got a copy of grace after meals. Then you go up surrounded by a group of Israeli police armed with submachine guns pointed inwards at you whilst leering Arabs hurl abuse. The second time I was arrested for … kissing a rock with my hands and bowing slightly as I left. I’ve now signed a solemn statement promising never to act in such a disgraceful manner again. The UN resolution describes this as “far right extremists” “storming” the temple mount. So, yes, Italy can go F themselves. I wouldn’t, of course, say they deserve an earthquake, because I’m not some dumb Druze guy who got over-promoted.

  54. @eah
    It’s hard not to have sympathy for Huma.

    You've got to be kidding man -- hello?! -- she's giving her all trying to get that wretched HRC elected POTUS -- isn't that reason enough to have no sympathy whatsoever for her? -- not to mention she may have committed perjury earlier.

  55. @candid_observer
    Apropos of Comey's decision to go public with the reopening of the case against Hillary, and, apparently, against standard protocol and the urging of Loretta Lynch, I think the interpretation that makes most sense by far is the obvious one: the FBI has found something very significant in those emails, and he couldn't justify doing anything else.

    In the end, Comey has got to be concerned fundamentally with his own reputation. Suppose he believed that, in fact, in the end, these emails might well turn out to be nothing of consequence. Yet he has now violated the standard protocols and the DOJ admonishments, and has turned the election against Hillary at a critical juncture. Under those circumstances, when the day would arrive that the concern with the emails was dismissed, he would never be able to recover his reputation--he would become a legendary object of scorn. I just don't see how a man in Comey's position would ever take those steps.

    People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move, even though he knows that the emails are likely not significant. But the one thing that he won't be able to do in either of those scenarios is save his own reputation -- he will be demonized forever over any such clear chicanery. Nothing could make this worthwhile for a man in his position.

    I infer from all this that Comey must believe that there are smoking guns in this batch of emails, and that the case for illegality is very strong. That is his only way out of this mess with his reputation intact.

    Hillary and the Democrats are of course now calling for further explanations and justifications.

    My advice to them: be careful what you wish for.

    “People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move ”

    Notice the rise of Turkish/Byzantine conspiracy thinking in US politics?

    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    Notice the rise of Turkish/Byzantine conspiracy thinking in US politics?

    It hasn't gone unnoticed in the Greece, whose political institutions are drowned by Byzantine dysfunction. The familiarity of the current American presidential race is very unsettling to us, because we look to Western Europe and north American politics for a certain, I won't call it civility, but more a maturity that is woefully absent from ours. This quote from a Greek article called "Lost Legacy" is a good example of what is making the rounds:


    Greece is no stranger to what the US is experiencing today: the unbridgeable gap between the elite and mainstream society, the extremist voices that find expression on social media, the spread of conspiracy theories and the questioning of “systemic” media, the unchecked polarization.

    Political extremism is not unique to Greece anymore.


    http://www.ekathimerini.com/213153/opinion/ekathimerini/comment/lost-legacy
  56. @Boomstick
    The US military has been thinking about insurgencies in urban areas for decades. Back in the 50's and 60's the decisive military terrain was out in rural areas. Everyone worried about land reform and strategic hamlets and winning the hearts and minds of rural peasants, because rural areas was where most of the population was. During the 70's and 80's the world changed as the population shifted to the cities. Now we have megacities like Sao Paulo, Cairo, or Lagos. Even in nations that lack megacities the population is almost always urban rather than rural. In a war the decisive terrain will be in urban areas, because that's where the population is.

    As much as the US military would like to fight a war out in the open desert where they can blast the conventional forces of a state adversary, the enemy is not likely to oblige. So the Army and USMC have to learn how to fight low intensity wars in urban areas.

    They really ought to read descriptions of the Battle of Stalingrad. Theodor Plevier’s novel of the same name, or War of the Rats, or Anthony Bevor’s book. There are others; it appears that Stalingrad was as close to hell on earth as anyone’s ever likely to see, and that was between regular armies with chains of command. I’m very skeptical any meaningful victory is possible in a mega-city.

  57. @yowza
    I think a big part of Hillary's problem is, thanks to the constant pounding from her husband, she's become tone-deaf to perversion. Most people don't have husband's like her, or Abedin.

    If Hillary had a lick of sense, she would have cut Abedin loose the moment it was disclosed that her pervert husband was in trouble AGAIN. It means the man is out of his fucking mind, and his wife is in denial. Because of this, she's bound to get his crazy all over her, and her boss, at the worst moment. That's what crazy spouses do.

    Abedin's apparent defense during her FBI interview of "I'm just a goofy chick. I don't get this computer stuff," won't flush when she's the right-hand woman of a presidential contender. Now, at the very least, Hillary's election bowl is backing up all over the both of them:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/huma-abedin-swore-under-oath-she-gave-up-all-the-devices-containing-state-department-emails.html

    The clear question, with what we can fairly surmise now is, if Abedin was in violation, is Hillary also in violation as her boss?

    Part of the problem is that Abedin is romantically linked to Hillary. The inclination is to not fire your spouse, even if they are a screw-up, and this complicates efficient policy and administration and tangles lines of authority.

    It would surprise me not at all if Huma is a dangle by an Arab intelligence service of some sort, btw.

    • Replies: @Nico

    Huma is a dangle by an Arab intelligence service of some sort
     
    This has been out in the open for some time, only the presstitutes don't seem go think it worth reporting on. It's called the "Muslim Brotherhood," by the way.
  58. @Anon
    Maybe sexting is really diplomacy by other means.

    Btw...

    Is this real?

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

    From description:

    "According to a startling Pentagon video obtained by The Intercept, the future of global cities will be an amalgam of the settings of "Escape from New York" and "Robocop" — with dashes of the "Warriors" and "Divergent" thrown in. It will be a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers."

    ------------------

    "To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes, they seem like two kids who give you hope in a glorious future in which Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions to the Clinton Foundation."

    This sounds like an orgy.

    It sounds pretty reasonable. The developing world is urbanizing very rapidly, because cities are where the economic opportunities are generally located. There’s a huge shift in populations going from rural to urban all over the developing world and most megacities are in poor countries. Living in a slum in Delhi sucks, but it’s marginally better than farming rice in a village that lacks electricity and running water. In my experience visiting an Asian megacity, it’s completely true that the population grew much faster than the infrastructure and government services needed to support the people. There’s a tendency in the rapidly developing countries for most internal migrants to move to the capital instead of dispersing to numerous moderately sized cities. My opinion is that America is advantaged in that the country is decentrally urbanized with large and medium sized cities all over the place instead of 75 million people all trying to live in New York. If you assume that the US military is going to be involved mostly in the developing world in the future (fighting terrorism and whatnot), then it’s reasonable to expect places like Lagos, Lima and Karachi are going to be an absolute mess.

  59. @Luke Sellers
    Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine. I know that distresses you guys but the only problem people are white Christians

    Clinton will win the election in a landslide

    I know that distresses you guys but the only problem people are white Christians

    Do you mean the ‘problem’ of them building such great societies that all of the Earth’s garbage just has to try to live with them?

  60. @Yak-15
    I heard from a wise friend that Huma and Antony are still married only to prevent testimony on one another.

    Makes sense. It IS 2016 and with all the buzz on sexual misconduct one would think that corruption of a minor of all things would open the door to the speediest imaginable divorce as another poster argues. There is definitely some mutual back-scratching going on here.

  61. @The Z Blog
    This is a popular theory with people who watch too much TV. You don't help someone by dropping a bomb on their campaign ten days before the election. No amount of exoneration is worth a week of bad coverage before the election.

    This has a Mark Felt vibe to it. The WSJ story about bribing is second in command and now these Wiener docs makes Comey look like an idiot inside the department. They made a fool of him and this is how he is returning the favor. Next week he can stand in front of the press and give a recitation of all the lies they told him.

    In Washington, all politics are personal.

    This is a popular theory with people who watch too much TV.

    I had the same thoughts as I read the theory. Real life doesn’t work like the crime drama scenario Anonymous has suggested.

  62. @Anon
    I was thinking something along the lines of Jewish-Muslim interaction in the Mideast has caused endless trouble for both themselves and anyone else in their orbit, and this marriage is doing ditto. It's like there's a curse on the two populations that only operates jointly.

    OT: I'm beginning to suspect California is going to vote for Trump, but then legalize pot so the entire state can be stoned throughout his administration, thus avoiding the trouble of actually paying attention to what he does. Heck, when the big earthquake comes, no one's going to care. More seriously, with the example of Colorado not falling to pieces in front of them, California will almost certainly go for it.

    I was thinking something along the lines of Jewish-Muslim interaction in the Mideast has caused endless trouble for both themselves and anyone else in their orbit, and this marriage is doing ditto. It’s like there’s a curse on the two populations that only operates jointly.

    My second apartment in Paris was in the 19th district, which by 2008 was neatly on the border between an old Jewish zone and a not-totally-stagnant but not exactly safe, still mostly Muslim zone. My best friend from college remarked, “Somehow, they always manage to find each other!” I quipped, “Yup, just like Brooklyn and Queens!” to which she said, “I was just about to say, ‘Brooklyn and Queens’!”

    So it’s a thesis that’s compelling enough to anyone who’s marginally perceptive and who pays attention and isn’t brainwashed by The Narrative, at any rate.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Almost as if they're naturally attracted to the same habitat.
    , @Anonymous
    Most of the Jews in Paris are Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East and are either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants, so it isn't too suprising that they would move to similar affordable areas where there are restaurants and shops that cater to Middle Eastern immigrant tastes. There aren't that many Ashkenazi or old Sephardic Jewish families left in France thanks to the Nazis. Those more affluent Jews tend not to live right next door to the Arabs.
  63. @Pat Hannagan
    Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quQArlckTS4

    Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia, Arabia

    The The is God.

  64. @Steve Sailer
    They have a child.

    I’m still not sure what to make of the Sappho thesis, but this wouldn’t be the first marriage in which a homosexual produced a child or even many children. How much sex went on outside of deliberately procreative moments is another question.

  65. @Boomstick
    Part of the problem is that Abedin is romantically linked to Hillary. The inclination is to not fire your spouse, even if they are a screw-up, and this complicates efficient policy and administration and tangles lines of authority.

    It would surprise me not at all if Huma is a dangle by an Arab intelligence service of some sort, btw.

    Huma is a dangle by an Arab intelligence service of some sort

    This has been out in the open for some time, only the presstitutes don’t seem go think it worth reporting on. It’s called the “Muslim Brotherhood,” by the way.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    As much as the Brotherhood features in neocon conspiracy theories (because if there's a machiavellian fifth column walking the halls of power of Middle Eastern origins, it's surely Muslims), they don't seem to have been able to translate their apparent reach into much success back at home.
    , @FX Enderby
    New theory seen on the "far-right (deep dark) internet":

    Weiner is a hasbara agent who used his proximity to Huma to spy on Clinton for Israel. Any takers?
  66. @whorefinder
    And it was Hillary, by the accounts, that pushed Huma into having a relationship with Mr. Danger. Carlos, being the horndog, was all for it, but Huma (from the stories) was giving off strong "no" vibes----till Sick Hillary shoved them together on the Vineyard one summer/

    Perhaps Hillary convinced Huma that being single AND sleeping in Hillary's bed was far too suspicious, and that Weiner (a former Schumer aide, and rising political star) was a good match/cover for the Saudi Princess.

    Me gets the sense that Hillary "groomed" Huma, in more ways than one.

    P.S. Chuck Schumer had Weiner as his aide and gave him help in his rise in Congress (and in the NYC election he flopped in, IIRC). Perhaps we should start looking at Schumer's other former aides to see if Schumer' judgment was just as bad with them---for example, current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (i.e. Manhattan) Preet Bharara. I wonder if Bharara has any skeletons in his closet like Weiner---maybe they were drinking buddies back in the day? Schumer's penchant for loving the camera seems to have made him choose at least one aide addicted to the camera---both in private and in public. Is Bharara similar? I ask this only because Bharara has done some high-level prosecutions to get his name out there---political prosecutions. Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it's best to know now if he's pulling a Weiner on his wife.

    Preetinder Bharara is another example of the Asians replacing Jews as the American intellectual elite. The identical Schumer backround makes it an interesting sociological experiment in an all else being equal sort of way. Kind of interesting how South Asians are floating around the mess, Huma Abedin, and Neera Tanden. That immigrant work ethic.

  67. @Horseball
    Don't worry, we have just uncovered a much more serious threat to the Republic: Some unemployed lunatic shouted Jew-S-A! at a Trump rally.

    Such a person could in no way possible be a “plant.” No way folks!

  68. Well, we are looking at the possible Horror Show of all times — Hillary Hugo Chavez waddling or staggering around the Oval Office, Bill, the Child Predator, wandering the halls with a box of cigars looking for a teenage intern. Instead of press conferences, Hillary will star in her own productions of “Lifestyles of Rich and Famous”.
    The Weiner and little lady Weiner must be hunting for a witness protection program.

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-basket-of-deplorables-waiting-for.html

  69. @Lot
    Preet has put more Wall Street crooks in jail than any US Attorney since Rudy. He would be a better mayor or governor of NY than any of the normal NY politicians.

    Is it possible that democrats are actually the one trying to take her down?

  70. @Lurker

    To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes
     
    Whereas to any normal person Weiner comes across as repellent both in looks and behavior.

    “…to any normal person Weiner comes across as repellent both in looks and behavior.”

    As does the Harpy.

    The Harpy’s 2016 candidacy is another example of the futility of nominating someone because “it’s their turn”, like Bob Dole only with multiple felonies.

  71. @Alec Leamas
    If you watch the Weiner documentary, you definitely get the sense that they're not married-married, and (surprising for me because I want to hate her) Huma comes off as a very sympathetic figure. She's stuck with this narcissistic deviated prevert and really seems to make the best of it with a stiff upper lip and all that. In private she seems positively girly in a charming way, which I did not expect given her close association with uber-shrike HRC. You really do come away feeling that she's a human being and he's, well, the other thing. So, part of me hopes that she's not the lone sacrificial goat who takes the hit for a vast criminal organization.

    > Huma comes off as a very sympathetic figure

    well, if people are the average of their 5 closest friends, then I have not much sympathy for Huma Abedin.

    Notwithstanding which, looking at the DETAILS of her transactioning…., she certainly is no mastermind criminal. she’s a follower.

  72. @Luke Sellers
    Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine. I know that distresses you guys but the only problem people are white Christians

    Clinton will win the election in a landslide

    Tiny Duck!! You are back!

  73. My hope is that Anthony and Huma will be able to put all of this behind them and start healing their marriage. It’s not like they have irreconcilable differences or something.

  74. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/792525927032852481

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html

    Maybe the simplest explanation is best: he doesn't know what the e-mails are about, but if they turned out to be explosive he would be excoriated for not saying anything -- and if they turn out to be nothing, well, he only said that he needed to "supplement the record" that the investigation isn't over yet.

    And we all know the FBI wouldn’t dare trample on the constitutional rights of Americans. Of course they read them.

  75. @Nico

    Huma is a dangle by an Arab intelligence service of some sort
     
    This has been out in the open for some time, only the presstitutes don't seem go think it worth reporting on. It's called the "Muslim Brotherhood," by the way.

    As much as the Brotherhood features in neocon conspiracy theories (because if there’s a machiavellian fifth column walking the halls of power of Middle Eastern origins, it’s surely Muslims), they don’t seem to have been able to translate their apparent reach into much success back at home.

    • Replies: @Karl
    > As much as the Brotherhood features in neocon conspiracy theories (because if there’s a machiavellian fifth column walking the halls of power of Middle Eastern origins, it’s surely Muslims), they don’t seem to have been able to translate their apparent reach into much success back at home.

    Yep..... it's odd that guys who've never lived in a Gulf country for an amount of time, have strong certainty about social dynamics therein.

    Huma's parents were completely AVERAGE upper-middle foreign workers in KSA. The security organs would have kicked them out quickly if they were involved in ANYTHING which is bad news for the ruling family. South Asians in KSA or UAE or Qatar etc, live in fear of getting kicked out. Usually being owed 9 months salary. Read the Karachi newspapers.

    Not only that, but they're not native Arabic speakers. I haven't done the googling, I don't know how much Arabic Huma ever picked up herself. KSA does NOT have a cultural theme of integrating with South Asians.

    There's a fundamental problem the wannabe-Caliphate-nikkim have.... not much real historical basis for such a thing to happen. It only ever happened the FIRST time around only in the sense that the Holy Roman Empire was holy, or Roman.

    In my mind, Huma Abedin is about as Muzzie Fundamentalist as Anthony Weiner is a Undivided-Land-of-Israel settler-activist.

    Match made in heaven. Well, if all else fails, Hillary can still have her little sideline business of being a shadkhaneet.
  76. @Yak-15
    I heard from a wise friend that Huma and Antony are still married only to prevent testimony on one another.

    … prevent compelled testimony. Voluntary is as voluntary sees profitable.

  77. @Luke Sellers
    Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine. I know that distresses you guys but the only problem people are white Christians

    Clinton will win the election in a landslide

    Hi Tiny Duck.

  78. @Mr. Anon
    "Looks like Muslims and Jews get along fine."

    Yeah, that whole Israel/Palestine thing is just a friendly spat.

    More in the nature of a cousinly quarrel.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Population genetics research demonstrates that Ashkenazi Jews aren't any closer genetically to modern Levantine Arabs than they are to Italians, and they are genetically even less close to peninsular Arabs.
  79. @Steve Sailer
    They have a child.

    A better beard than merely having a paper spouse.

  80. “They both have a common enemy in Shi’ite Iran and dislike Iran’s ally, the Alaawite Assad in Syria.”

    It’s been my longstanding impression that contrary to what we hear about the Syrian mess being a “war for Israel” and so on, that the Israelis were actually vaguely supportive of the Assad regime in their pragmatic realpolitik way. From the Israeli point of view, they preferred Assad, as a religio-ethnic minority tyrant projecting power onto Syria’s religio-ethnic majority, to an alternative where the Syrian majority projects power against its neighbor Israel. And therefore the Israelis were not enthusiastic about the Obama-Hillary project of poking the Syrian hornet’s nest.

    I actually partly agree with the Jew-phobes that the US often is too deferential to Israel and to (perceived) Jewish interests. It is ironic, therefore, that when the the US–well, Obama and Hillary, who aren’t really American, but you know what I mean–finally does act against Israeli interest, it does so in a way that is against US interest as well. In fact, that is the only unifying thread I have ever found in all of Obama’s and Hillary’s actions: they always do whatever they think will most harm America.

    • Replies: @Pat Hannagan
    It’s been my longstanding impression that contrary to what we hear about the Syrian mess being a “war for Israel” and so on, that the Israelis were actually vaguely supportive of the Assad regime in their pragmatic realpolitik way. From the Israeli point of view, they preferred Assad, as a religio-ethnic minority tyrant projecting power onto Syria’s religio-ethnic majority, to an alternative where the Syrian majority projects power against its neighbor Israel. And therefore the Israelis were not enthusiastic about the Obama-Hillary project of poking the Syrian hornet’s nest.

    Ha ha yeah fuck off.

    , @reiner Tor
    Where do you get your impressions that the Israeli government ever supported Assad? If the facts that they have bombed Assad and his allies (especially Hezbollah) a lot and provided hospital care to wounded rebel fighters haven't convinced you that they want Assad gone, then, well, they have actually said so.
  81. @Almost Missouri

    "They both have a common enemy in Shi’ite Iran and dislike Iran’s ally, the Alaawite Assad in Syria."
     
    It's been my longstanding impression that contrary to what we hear about the Syrian mess being a "war for Israel" and so on, that the Israelis were actually vaguely supportive of the Assad regime in their pragmatic realpolitik way. From the Israeli point of view, they preferred Assad, as a religio-ethnic minority tyrant projecting power onto Syria's religio-ethnic majority, to an alternative where the Syrian majority projects power against its neighbor Israel. And therefore the Israelis were not enthusiastic about the Obama-Hillary project of poking the Syrian hornet's nest.

    I actually partly agree with the Jew-phobes that the US often is too deferential to Israel and to (perceived) Jewish interests. It is ironic, therefore, that when the the US--well, Obama and Hillary, who aren't really American, but you know what I mean--finally does act against Israeli interest, it does so in a way that is against US interest as well. In fact, that is the only unifying thread I have ever found in all of Obama's and Hillary's actions: they always do whatever they think will most harm America.

    It’s been my longstanding impression that contrary to what we hear about the Syrian mess being a “war for Israel” and so on, that the Israelis were actually vaguely supportive of the Assad regime in their pragmatic realpolitik way. From the Israeli point of view, they preferred Assad, as a religio-ethnic minority tyrant projecting power onto Syria’s religio-ethnic majority, to an alternative where the Syrian majority projects power against its neighbor Israel. And therefore the Israelis were not enthusiastic about the Obama-Hillary project of poking the Syrian hornet’s nest.

    Ha ha yeah fuck off.

  82. @Father O'Hara
    Some Israeli big shot just stated that the recent earthquakes in Italy were God's response to a UN resolution supported by Italy,being mean to Israel for its handling of the Temple Mount. These guys have nuclear bombs??

    CLASSIC anti-Israel internet comment!

    Classic because in taking something that a back-bencher Arab parliamentarian in Israel did and trying to use it to to make Jews look bad it is following the standard formula: distort the facts, even to the point of being the opposite of what they actually are, in order to try to make uninformed people turn against Israel.

    If people were less stupid about Israel, you would have heard about that incident and said “Wow, it is great that Israel is a democracy where even Arabs, even minority Arabs such as Druze as this guy is, serve in the Parliament, and it is also great that they are a free country where people, even those Druze, can say silly things to the media. “

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Swell! So now I'M the bad guy.
  83. @Almost Missouri

    "They both have a common enemy in Shi’ite Iran and dislike Iran’s ally, the Alaawite Assad in Syria."
     
    It's been my longstanding impression that contrary to what we hear about the Syrian mess being a "war for Israel" and so on, that the Israelis were actually vaguely supportive of the Assad regime in their pragmatic realpolitik way. From the Israeli point of view, they preferred Assad, as a religio-ethnic minority tyrant projecting power onto Syria's religio-ethnic majority, to an alternative where the Syrian majority projects power against its neighbor Israel. And therefore the Israelis were not enthusiastic about the Obama-Hillary project of poking the Syrian hornet's nest.

    I actually partly agree with the Jew-phobes that the US often is too deferential to Israel and to (perceived) Jewish interests. It is ironic, therefore, that when the the US--well, Obama and Hillary, who aren't really American, but you know what I mean--finally does act against Israeli interest, it does so in a way that is against US interest as well. In fact, that is the only unifying thread I have ever found in all of Obama's and Hillary's actions: they always do whatever they think will most harm America.

    Where do you get your impressions that the Israeli government ever supported Assad? If the facts that they have bombed Assad and his allies (especially Hezbollah) a lot and provided hospital care to wounded rebel fighters haven’t convinced you that they want Assad gone, then, well, they have actually said so.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I said, "vaguely supported", as in preferred Assad's anxious minority government to the alternatives: popular Pan-Arab Nationalists (a pre-Assad situation) or a Salafist Jihadi majority government (an increasingly likely outcome of the Syrian conflict prior to Russian intervention).

    It's similar to Israel's other big neighbor and occasional war opponent, Egypt. Mubarak was no angel, but he was the devil the Israelis knew and knew they could work with. The Obama regime's toppling of him also annoyed Israelis, as well as destabilizing Egypt.

    Note that Israelis don't necessarily concur with the prominent American Jews who profess to speak on their behalf. Those people annoy the Israelis too. And no, I'm not Israeli or Jewish. I just try to look at the situation as the participants do.

  84. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Both women needed a beard and also felt they should have a child. Finding a man willing to marry them under such an unconventional circumstance entailed making compromises in the type of man available. Both ended up with sex-addict men with the understanding they could go their own way as long as they fulfilled the beard, career and child part of the bargain. However, both these men have turned out to be huge public embarrassments and real liabilities.
    I understand that at the time of the creation of Israel the Saudi monarch was not particularly opposed to it. They’ve had to pay lip service towards Arab solidarity over the years just for political reasons but no official Saudi soldier has been killed fighting Israel in the years since. The Saudis do not trust the other Arabs who may want to see them toppled so for Israel to keep them all in disarray works in their favor. Of course Huma lets her family members know what’s going on and they in turn pass it on. The connection is worth it’s weight in gold so they’re delighted that their daughter made the supreme sacrifice with her body to help them in this way.

  85. @Anonymous
    (From State Department releases satisfying a FOIA request, rendered into a searchable archive by Wikileaks)

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328


    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

    The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

    ...

    An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
     

    The State Department is wrong. Nuclear balance between enemies does not prevent armed response to provocations. Mutual dissuasion works both ways meaning that the Iran theocrats will surely think twice and be prevented to respond to Israeli actions. Look how a courageous leader like Vladimir Putin recovered Crimea and is fighting in Ukraine and Syria – in spite of nuclear dissuasion. When you and me both have revolvers pointing to each other’s heads, the more courageous wins. The one with “beytzim” – balls. Or the craziest, and no one is crazier than we.

  86. @Boomstick
    "People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move "

    Notice the rise of Turkish/Byzantine conspiracy thinking in US politics?

    Notice the rise of Turkish/Byzantine conspiracy thinking in US politics?

    It hasn’t gone unnoticed in the Greece, whose political institutions are drowned by Byzantine dysfunction. The familiarity of the current American presidential race is very unsettling to us, because we look to Western Europe and north American politics for a certain, I won’t call it civility, but more a maturity that is woefully absent from ours. This quote from a Greek article called “Lost Legacy” is a good example of what is making the rounds:

    Greece is no stranger to what the US is experiencing today: the unbridgeable gap between the elite and mainstream society, the extremist voices that find expression on social media, the spread of conspiracy theories and the questioning of “systemic” media, the unchecked polarization.

    Political extremism is not unique to Greece anymore.

    http://www.ekathimerini.com/213153/opinion/ekathimerini/comment/lost-legacy

  87. @candid_observer
    Apropos of Comey's decision to go public with the reopening of the case against Hillary, and, apparently, against standard protocol and the urging of Loretta Lynch, I think the interpretation that makes most sense by far is the obvious one: the FBI has found something very significant in those emails, and he couldn't justify doing anything else.

    In the end, Comey has got to be concerned fundamentally with his own reputation. Suppose he believed that, in fact, in the end, these emails might well turn out to be nothing of consequence. Yet he has now violated the standard protocols and the DOJ admonishments, and has turned the election against Hillary at a critical juncture. Under those circumstances, when the day would arrive that the concern with the emails was dismissed, he would never be able to recover his reputation--he would become a legendary object of scorn. I just don't see how a man in Comey's position would ever take those steps.

    People are imagining all sorts of bizarre scenarios under which Comey might be helping Hillary or helping Trump by this move, even though he knows that the emails are likely not significant. But the one thing that he won't be able to do in either of those scenarios is save his own reputation -- he will be demonized forever over any such clear chicanery. Nothing could make this worthwhile for a man in his position.

    I infer from all this that Comey must believe that there are smoking guns in this batch of emails, and that the case for illegality is very strong. That is his only way out of this mess with his reputation intact.

    Hillary and the Democrats are of course now calling for further explanations and justifications.

    My advice to them: be careful what you wish for.

    It could be anything but this makes the most sense to me. This definetly does not help Hillary. If Comey really wanted to help Trump he shouldn’t have let the issue drop and provide Hillary cover to begin with. Sure, the Attorney General would gave refused to prosecute but the FBI is well regarded and gives the appearance of being unbiased. For a lot of people, when the FBI says it’s not a big deal, that’s good enough. If the new emails don’t reveal something very significant, why not keep quiet? Comey will look ridiculous if there is nothing to it. If it’s big and he says nothing, it looks like he’s covering it up. A bombshell revelation, even if it comes after the election will shut up a lot of the criticism he is facing now.

  88. There is a belief that Wahabbi, the founder of the Wahabbist in islam was Jewish. Also the Saudi’s are Jewish also. In that light, the Huma/ Weiner marriage does not seem that strange.

    • Replies: @Jimi Shmendrix
    Many Shi'ites think the Saudis are Jews.
    Many Sunnis think the Shi'ites are Jews.
    Many anti-Semites think "The Jews" aren't really Jews.

    And so on.
  89. @Anon
    Maybe sexting is really diplomacy by other means.

    Btw...

    Is this real?

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

    From description:

    "According to a startling Pentagon video obtained by The Intercept, the future of global cities will be an amalgam of the settings of "Escape from New York" and "Robocop" — with dashes of the "Warriors" and "Divergent" thrown in. It will be a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers."

    ------------------

    "To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes, they seem like two kids who give you hope in a glorious future in which Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions to the Clinton Foundation."

    This sounds like an orgy.

    Cities may be the future, but cities aren’t all the same. Traditionally, cities were value creation centers. Besides being hubs of trade and commerce, they were also where capital was developed and deepened. But now there is a new kind of city, especially, but not exclusively, in the Third World: the city where globalist loot is spent and the service providers to the global loot-spenders dwell.

    This has gotten so pronounced that even the ossified twerps at The Economist have had to (sort of) notice.

    http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21707214-all-over-world-people-escape-poverty-moving-cities-why-does-not

    So don’t look for future innovation or industrial production to start emanating from Lagos, despite its concentration of 21m+ souls freed from the drudgery of subsistence agriculture.

    Of course, resort towns for the wealthy are nothing new (ancient Pompeii served this role for ancient Rome), but the scale is new. Traditional resorts were third- or fourth-tier towns, and generally distinct from centers of industry, commerce and government. These new loot cities are the centers of government and their industry is the only national industry: loot consumption.

    Anyway, as far as the military is concerned, fighting an enemy embedded in a city is almost always a mistake. No city is self-sufficient. Once cut off from the surrounding country, it must eventually submit or starve. It’s still a popular objective with political commanders though.

  90. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/792525927032852481

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html

    Maybe the simplest explanation is best: he doesn't know what the e-mails are about, but if they turned out to be explosive he would be excoriated for not saying anything -- and if they turn out to be nothing, well, he only said that he needed to "supplement the record" that the investigation isn't over yet.

    My guess is that the FBI may well be able to make reasonable inferences about those emails even without a warrant.

    They could ask Weiner about them, for example — who would have every incentive to be cooperative. Even to determine whose emails they were, and that an additional warrant was required, they would have to know something about them. They might have metadata on them allowing them to match or not match them up with previous emails. It’s not in any way obvious to an outsider just what one needs a warrant for under these circumstances, and how much information may be obtained in its absence. They’ve got the laptop. The emails are presumably stored on them. They can count the number of the emails. They may well have the password. What they already know may be enough to infer the existence of a smoking gun, especially since Abedin had declared that she had turned in all relevant devices. Frankly, one possibility is that they delved into some of the emails without a warrant, perhaps not even realizing at first they might need one. (Of course this might raise the issue of whether those particular emails can be used in court. I don’t see though how it would taint all of the emails, since that search would certainly have been conducted in the end.)

    And of course a very real additional possibility is that it’s the Justice Department itself that is obstructing justice here, by slow walking the process of getting a warrant. How hard should this be if they have any sense of urgency? One wonders if part of the motivation for Comey to go to Congress about it was to stop such obstruction.

    But I repeat my basic point: the correct way to think about what Comey did is to see it as his attempt to preserve his reputation. That he chose to do this despite all of the reasons not to do it at this stage, and against the warnings of the DOJ demonstrates the depth of his concern about what is in those emails.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Some real reporting -- as opposed to desperate spinning -- on the matter of the email investigation:

    https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/792719744830812160

    Bottom line: the FBI clearly knows something about some number of the emails.
    , @Anonymous
    But I see his actions as reputation-preserving even if he has no info or no damning info from the e-mails so far, because people would be screaming bloody murder if it was discovered after the election that the investigation was still quietly ongoing and it turned up something bad. If there's nothing then that's the fault of those who read so much into his statement.

    I think "the American people are sick and tired about hearing about her damn emails", they care about her passing out and getting thrown into the back of a van.

    , @Bugg
    Either Weiner or Abedin could give consent for the search of the computer, or could be the informant for a search warrant affidavit. Given what they are facing-him for sexting and underage girl, her for violating her immunity agreement-that should happen very quickly if it hasn't happened already.
  91. @Horseball
    Don't worry, we have just uncovered a much more serious threat to the Republic: Some unemployed lunatic shouted Jew-S-A! at a Trump rally.

    “Don’t worry, we have just uncovered a much more serious threat to the Republic: Some unemployed lunatic shouted Jew-S-A! at a Trump rally.”

    Scott Foval?

  92. As far as I know, Weiner never actually met anyone he was sexting, or got past the stage of talking dirty to women thousands of miles away. He has ruined his marriage, committed an offence that may land him in prison, and maybe deprived his party of the presidency – and all without leaving his bedroom. That must surely be a record of some kind.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    Sexting is new black, or orange, or something...
    , @BB753
    Pathetic indeed, in that Weiner didn't even get laid.. There must be something very wrong with this guy.
  93. @reiner Tor
    Where do you get your impressions that the Israeli government ever supported Assad? If the facts that they have bombed Assad and his allies (especially Hezbollah) a lot and provided hospital care to wounded rebel fighters haven't convinced you that they want Assad gone, then, well, they have actually said so.

    I said, “vaguely supported”, as in preferred Assad’s anxious minority government to the alternatives: popular Pan-Arab Nationalists (a pre-Assad situation) or a Salafist Jihadi majority government (an increasingly likely outcome of the Syrian conflict prior to Russian intervention).

    It’s similar to Israel’s other big neighbor and occasional war opponent, Egypt. Mubarak was no angel, but he was the devil the Israelis knew and knew they could work with. The Obama regime’s toppling of him also annoyed Israelis, as well as destabilizing Egypt.

    Note that Israelis don’t necessarily concur with the prominent American Jews who profess to speak on their behalf. Those people annoy the Israelis too. And no, I’m not Israeli or Jewish. I just try to look at the situation as the participants do.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    In Egypt, Netanyahu actually said that he preferred Mubarak. In Syria, he never said he preferred Assad, and his former ambassador to the US as well as a prominent intelligence official said that Israel actually preferred Salafists to Assad.

    And in Egypt, Israeli actions certainly supported the military government (IIRC they cooperated with them against Islamists hiding in the Sinai desert), while in the case of Syria, they are clearly supporting the rebels.

    For Israel, Egypt and Syria are two totally different cases, because Iran and because Hezbollah. Interestingly, the Egyptian military government is the Saudis' preference, too, since in Egypt they are opposed to Islamism. Apparently again because Iran and because Shia.

    And yes, I'm not talking about American Jews, I'm talking about Israel.

    , @Gabriel M
    It's objective, demonstrable fact that Israeli government was pushing for the U.S. to support Mubarak at the same time that American neocons were supporting the *brave people fighting for freedom blah, blah, blah*. The same is not the case for Syria and you can't infer one from the other because Mubarak was a cold ally, whilst Assad was a cold enemy. No-one really knows what Isgov's role has been in the Syria conflict besides what has been made plain, namely preventing Hizb'Allah from using the situation to improve its missile position vis a vis Israel.

    What we do know is that Isgov is NOT supporting the mad rush to a global conflict with Russia over the Syria issue. That is to say, even if it is true that Isgov was part of some nefarious scheme to explode Syria, they're not interested in turning it into a global conflagration like USG and much of the EU.
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-explains-Russias-interest-in-cooperating-with-Israel-468517



    Parenthetically, I will note that Paleocons used to argue passionately that the US-Israel alliance was bad because it worsened relations with the oil-rich Arab states. But then Israel started chumming up with oil-rich Arab states, so the new argument is that the US needs to cut Israel loose so it can pursue relations with its natural allies like, umm, irredentist Shiite militias and ummm stuff, oil-rich Arab states be damned.
  94. @yowza
    I think a big part of Hillary's problem is, thanks to the constant pounding from her husband, she's become tone-deaf to perversion. Most people don't have husband's like her, or Abedin.

    If Hillary had a lick of sense, she would have cut Abedin loose the moment it was disclosed that her pervert husband was in trouble AGAIN. It means the man is out of his fucking mind, and his wife is in denial. Because of this, she's bound to get his crazy all over her, and her boss, at the worst moment. That's what crazy spouses do.

    Abedin's apparent defense during her FBI interview of "I'm just a goofy chick. I don't get this computer stuff," won't flush when she's the right-hand woman of a presidential contender. Now, at the very least, Hillary's election bowl is backing up all over the both of them:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/29/huma-abedin-swore-under-oath-she-gave-up-all-the-devices-containing-state-department-emails.html

    The clear question, with what we can fairly surmise now is, if Abedin was in violation, is Hillary also in violation as her boss?

    Abedin’s immunity agreement required to turn over all her devices. And that’s where things went to hell.

    Dealt with the FBI professionally. Frankly found them to be very impressed with themselves; Famous But Incompetent. But for being able to charge people with making false statements to them(something no local and state law enforcement can do) their investigators are nothing special. Forensic testing and IT stuff, they are among the best. But shoe leather detective work, not so much. In fact on a whole host of high profile cases, they dropped the ball. The Boston Marathon bombing case official story is an embarrassment from beginning to end. Add that to the John Connolly/Whitey Bulger, Greg Scarpa/Lin DelVecchio, “solving” Flight 800 with a cartoon, the complete noninvestigations before Major Hassan, San Bernandino., Orlando, you have a agency that is hurting. There are no doubt some long term career agents that view the Hillary mess as another loss. Obama has probably sent many of those guys into retirement with his PC multi culti nonsense, but not all. And allowing the Clinton machine to run the show right over them had to be a bitter pill.

    They also see the writing on the wall of perps invoking a Hillary-style “didn’t mean it!” defense and not liking that at all. Comey said essentially Hillary did not intend to commit a crime, which is laughable. Moreso when the very statute has a negligence intent element.

    Said old timers were looking for in an in to right this wrong. NYPD on the ground has many cops working in task forces with FBI guys. And suspect the latest bigfooting of the NY FBI office by AG Lynch to indict Pantaleo in the Eric Garner case after they had already decided not to indict was the latest example of Obama DoJ pissing off the old school in local law enforcement and FBI. Likely timeline; NYPD and NC police on the Weiner case get Weiner’s computer for his latest dick pic fiasco and tell their FBI counterparts. Old timers, overjoyed with another shot, approach Comey with this new evidence of the emails and Abedin’s knowing violation of her immunity agreement. Comey, already facing a large scale mutiny among his rank and file along with his name being besmirched, had little choice but to reopen. And there has to be some serious bad stuff to justify the reopen. Because the Clinton machine and Obama are playing for keeps. Comey now has significant body parts in harm’s way.

    Awfully rich Hillary demanded Comey release all the emails. You don’t say?

  95. @Clifford Brown
    Anthony Weiner called out in Orthodox Jewish Brooklyn. It's hard not to have sympathy for Huma.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMtjc_X58T0

    I admire that guy for calling out Anthony. But there is no shaming such an arrogant person. I predict Anthony will have his own Jerry Springer type show (after he gets out of jail.)

    As to the whole Comey blowup, it’s nice to have the media shut down their hyper hysteria machine for a few days. Warning to fellow Trump supporters, though: don’t start doing victory laps just yet…that’s what Hillary was doing last week and it didn’t turn out so well.

  96. @Rob McX
    As far as I know, Weiner never actually met anyone he was sexting, or got past the stage of talking dirty to women thousands of miles away. He has ruined his marriage, committed an offence that may land him in prison, and maybe deprived his party of the presidency - and all without leaving his bedroom. That must surely be a record of some kind.

    Sexting is new black, or orange, or something…

  97. Lately, homophobic white Christian Russia has been…

    Russia is not homophobic. That’s a loser word, Steve, and adopting the vocabulary of people who hate you is a doof move. Russia’s view on sodomy is excessively permissive. It’s far better for the functioning of a normal society, though, than views and laws of degenerate Europe and the US. Sodomy is the only religion the west has left. Aside from cheap labor and Israel, what else is the US about anymore besides the expansion of sexual perversion in general and sodomy in particular?

  98. It should be noted that in the first open mommy v. daddy election that the ‘take downs’ resemble something out of the family courts. The orchestrated release of the Access Hollywood tapes and then the “11 women to come forward” smells of high conflict divorce proceeding replete with Gloria Allred appearing publicly with the broken housewife (albeit it one who was a washed up porn star). There is zero chance that there could be a legal action with any of these women; their only purpose is to gain leverage, but rather than custody or alimony the prize is thwarting the Donald’s Presidential bid. Even the pukey Alicia Machado- Miss Piggy – eating machine crisis of a month ago (which has disappeared) came across like a jilted past lover with an ax to grind.

    The funny thing is that this could come down to Anthony Wiener playing the one last card in his hand. No doubt, Huma is drilling him for custody, visitation, alimony, and the family assets. Based on what he has been accused of, his chances in court are slim and his future looks like a metaphoric cremation followed by a secret burial with no headstone. Huma’s future is to live out her life with her true love and all the cash and prizes, just like many divorces. In most divorces this would be where the husband outs the wife’s drug use or promiscuous lifestyle but in Huma’s case it is protecting her employer’s / mentors criminal enterprise. Usually, it is the man’s job that ace’s him out. In this case it is her’s.

  99. @Almost Missouri
    I said, "vaguely supported", as in preferred Assad's anxious minority government to the alternatives: popular Pan-Arab Nationalists (a pre-Assad situation) or a Salafist Jihadi majority government (an increasingly likely outcome of the Syrian conflict prior to Russian intervention).

    It's similar to Israel's other big neighbor and occasional war opponent, Egypt. Mubarak was no angel, but he was the devil the Israelis knew and knew they could work with. The Obama regime's toppling of him also annoyed Israelis, as well as destabilizing Egypt.

    Note that Israelis don't necessarily concur with the prominent American Jews who profess to speak on their behalf. Those people annoy the Israelis too. And no, I'm not Israeli or Jewish. I just try to look at the situation as the participants do.

    In Egypt, Netanyahu actually said that he preferred Mubarak. In Syria, he never said he preferred Assad, and his former ambassador to the US as well as a prominent intelligence official said that Israel actually preferred Salafists to Assad.

    And in Egypt, Israeli actions certainly supported the military government (IIRC they cooperated with them against Islamists hiding in the Sinai desert), while in the case of Syria, they are clearly supporting the rebels.

    For Israel, Egypt and Syria are two totally different cases, because Iran and because Hezbollah. Interestingly, the Egyptian military government is the Saudis’ preference, too, since in Egypt they are opposed to Islamism. Apparently again because Iran and because Shia.

    And yes, I’m not talking about American Jews, I’m talking about Israel.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    This is the first I've heard of Israelis preferring Salafists. If that's true and if that's official policy, then I stand corrected, but it still looks to me like Israel, Iran and Assad all have a common enemy in the Islamic State. And common enemies are the basis of many unlikely partnerships in that part of the world.
  100. @Alec Leamas
    If you watch the Weiner documentary, you definitely get the sense that they're not married-married, and (surprising for me because I want to hate her) Huma comes off as a very sympathetic figure. She's stuck with this narcissistic deviated prevert and really seems to make the best of it with a stiff upper lip and all that. In private she seems positively girly in a charming way, which I did not expect given her close association with uber-shrike HRC. You really do come away feeling that she's a human being and he's, well, the other thing. So, part of me hopes that she's not the lone sacrificial goat who takes the hit for a vast criminal organization.

    Maybe not Western married-married. In traditional arranged marriages they have usually fell in love by about a year after they are wed and start having regular sex.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    Perhaps, but by the time of the documentary, it's several years since they wed and their child is a toddler. Their body language certainly doesn't convey that these are two people who are lovers - she's often in a closed posture (arms crossed across her body defensively, leaning away from him) and I don't think you ever really see any physical affection. You get the sense that he'd be all over her (or anyone else the least bit willing) but she doesn't remotely reciprocate. Part of it seems to be that Weiner doesn't possess the ability to interpret other people's emotions, facial expressions, and body language - there's one part where he's re-watching his disastrous performance being interviewed on MSNBC by Lawrence O'Donnell and laughing at his obstinance while Huma is obviously crestfallen and embarrassed for him he just can't seem to understand it. (This is, of course, at a time when one would think he'd be especially sensitive to his wife's emotional state because he had just been caught for the second time).

    Now, it is possible that this is because she's been attending to her mistress in and around DC and he's been left to his own devices in NYC for a while and they never had an extended period of being stuck together and living a married life.
  101. @whorefinder
    And it was Hillary, by the accounts, that pushed Huma into having a relationship with Mr. Danger. Carlos, being the horndog, was all for it, but Huma (from the stories) was giving off strong "no" vibes----till Sick Hillary shoved them together on the Vineyard one summer/

    Perhaps Hillary convinced Huma that being single AND sleeping in Hillary's bed was far too suspicious, and that Weiner (a former Schumer aide, and rising political star) was a good match/cover for the Saudi Princess.

    Me gets the sense that Hillary "groomed" Huma, in more ways than one.

    P.S. Chuck Schumer had Weiner as his aide and gave him help in his rise in Congress (and in the NYC election he flopped in, IIRC). Perhaps we should start looking at Schumer's other former aides to see if Schumer' judgment was just as bad with them---for example, current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (i.e. Manhattan) Preet Bharara. I wonder if Bharara has any skeletons in his closet like Weiner---maybe they were drinking buddies back in the day? Schumer's penchant for loving the camera seems to have made him choose at least one aide addicted to the camera---both in private and in public. Is Bharara similar? I ask this only because Bharara has done some high-level prosecutions to get his name out there---political prosecutions. Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it's best to know now if he's pulling a Weiner on his wife.

    Another thought: Wiener is the mole.

    Opportunity: He had access to his wife’s living area.
    Means: He may have had access to his wife’s passwords and and electronics.
    Motive: His marriage was close to ended already. Professional jealousy. He’s an out of control wack job.

    Theory: The emails that were on his pc were sent to Wikileaks.

  102. @Almost Missouri
    I said, "vaguely supported", as in preferred Assad's anxious minority government to the alternatives: popular Pan-Arab Nationalists (a pre-Assad situation) or a Salafist Jihadi majority government (an increasingly likely outcome of the Syrian conflict prior to Russian intervention).

    It's similar to Israel's other big neighbor and occasional war opponent, Egypt. Mubarak was no angel, but he was the devil the Israelis knew and knew they could work with. The Obama regime's toppling of him also annoyed Israelis, as well as destabilizing Egypt.

    Note that Israelis don't necessarily concur with the prominent American Jews who profess to speak on their behalf. Those people annoy the Israelis too. And no, I'm not Israeli or Jewish. I just try to look at the situation as the participants do.

    It’s objective, demonstrable fact that Israeli government was pushing for the U.S. to support Mubarak at the same time that American neocons were supporting the *brave people fighting for freedom blah, blah, blah*. The same is not the case for Syria and you can’t infer one from the other because Mubarak was a cold ally, whilst Assad was a cold enemy. No-one really knows what Isgov’s role has been in the Syria conflict besides what has been made plain, namely preventing Hizb’Allah from using the situation to improve its missile position vis a vis Israel.

    What we do know is that Isgov is NOT supporting the mad rush to a global conflict with Russia over the Syria issue. That is to say, even if it is true that Isgov was part of some nefarious scheme to explode Syria, they’re not interested in turning it into a global conflagration like USG and much of the EU.

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-explains-Russias-interest-in-cooperating-with-Israel-468517

    Parenthetically, I will note that Paleocons used to argue passionately that the US-Israel alliance was bad because it worsened relations with the oil-rich Arab states. But then Israel started chumming up with oil-rich Arab states, so the new argument is that the US needs to cut Israel loose so it can pursue relations with its natural allies like, umm, irredentist Shiite militias and ummm stuff, oil-rich Arab states be damned.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Thanks for your take on this.

    Paleocons used to argue passionately that the US-Israel alliance was bad because it worsened relations with the oil-rich Arab states. But then Israel started chumming up with oil-rich Arab states, so the new argument is that the US needs to cut Israel loose so it can pursue relations with its natural allies like, umm, irredentist Shiite militias and ummm stuff, oil-rich Arab states be damned.
     
    To be honest, oil-rich Arab states seemed less crazy thirty years ago. While Iran seemed way crazier. Now the Gulf Arabs are supporting ISIS (according to a certain former US Secretary of State, at least), and of course dozens of other militias just slightly saner than ISIS. It doesn't make much sense to help them with this, nor to prevent Russia and Iran from effectively opposing these militias.

    I think the US has very little interests in the Middle East. If one state gets stronger, the rest will combine against it (this was and still is the case with Iran certainly), and of course Israel wanted the US to destroy Iraq, so now it shouldn't complain that Iran got that much stronger. Should've thought harder before. I guess if Sharon told Dubya in 2002 in no uncertain terms that he didn't need the Iraq war at all, Dubya might have listened. Or if Netanyahu didn't tell Congress in 2002 that destroying Saddam would result in the blossoming of the first Arab democracy in the Middle East, and instead told them that Arab democracy was impossible for the foreseeable future, it might have helped, too. At the very least, Israel would have the right to complain about a stronger Iran. I often think that Sharon and Netanyahu not only knew this would result in chaos (I'm sure they knew that much) and were happy with it, but they also loved the possible consequence of creating a huge Shia state in Iraq, namely, that the Gulf Arabs would be forced into Israel's arms as a result of all this.

    The Gulf Arabs were in a less enviable position, because even if they had tried to stop the madness in Iraq, probably nobody would've listened to them, and since militarily they are shit (and they know this), there's no way they could've influenced the outcome much. At least not against Israel, that's for sure. So even if they are vile, in a sense they are just reacting to a situation not of their creation, since they are - rightly or wrongly - much afraid of a growing Iranian regional power. That's also the reason why the Palestinians now need to cozy up to the Shia, and are supporting Assad in Syria, since obviously the Gulf Arabs stopped supporting them after becoming de facto Israel allies. So now there is a collection of ethnic and religious minorities (not the best guys themselves, to be sure) fighting against a most crazy Islamist Sunni Arab majority, where, to be honest, I don't feel like supporting the craziest elements. Even if Israel and the Gulf Arabs are doing exactly that.
  103. You’re overthinking this, Steve. They were just two attractive young people, attracted to one another by nature. And sure, they shared an interest in politics, which helped as does any other shared interest.

    • Replies: @FX Enderby
    Huma really dug Anthony, if you watch the press conference where she read her statement and stood by her man - or she is an amazing actress. I want to hate her on principle, but she seems like a decent woman.

    Chicks dig jerks. Uber-jerk Weiner has "game" as the PUA boys say.
  104. @candid_observer
    My guess is that the FBI may well be able to make reasonable inferences about those emails even without a warrant.

    They could ask Weiner about them, for example -- who would have every incentive to be cooperative. Even to determine whose emails they were, and that an additional warrant was required, they would have to know something about them. They might have metadata on them allowing them to match or not match them up with previous emails. It's not in any way obvious to an outsider just what one needs a warrant for under these circumstances, and how much information may be obtained in its absence. They've got the laptop. The emails are presumably stored on them. They can count the number of the emails. They may well have the password. What they already know may be enough to infer the existence of a smoking gun, especially since Abedin had declared that she had turned in all relevant devices. Frankly, one possibility is that they delved into some of the emails without a warrant, perhaps not even realizing at first they might need one. (Of course this might raise the issue of whether those particular emails can be used in court. I don't see though how it would taint all of the emails, since that search would certainly have been conducted in the end.)

    And of course a very real additional possibility is that it's the Justice Department itself that is obstructing justice here, by slow walking the process of getting a warrant. How hard should this be if they have any sense of urgency? One wonders if part of the motivation for Comey to go to Congress about it was to stop such obstruction.

    But I repeat my basic point: the correct way to think about what Comey did is to see it as his attempt to preserve his reputation. That he chose to do this despite all of the reasons not to do it at this stage, and against the warnings of the DOJ demonstrates the depth of his concern about what is in those emails.

    Some real reporting — as opposed to desperate spinning — on the matter of the email investigation:

    Bottom line: the FBI clearly knows something about some number of the emails.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Yeah, this thing is shaking out pretty much as I suspected. Independent probe discovers evidence in the course of another investigation, goes upstairs with it, decision to re-open is made. Given the stated volume ("tens of thousands") however I'm pretty sure that these are being discovered and/or recovered from Yahoo! or the recycle bin.

    What can I say, anyone who didn't go to college starting in the Y2K and/or hasn't bothered to learn something will be completely in the dark about how computers, emails, and the internet actually work. Particularly the "movers" and "shakers": they don't have the time or the patience to learn any details. That's why they have staff.

    As to whether there's a smoking gun here: I have no idea. But it certainly does and will make HRC look bad.
  105. “He was a hard-headed man he was brutally handsome
    And she was terminally pretty
    She held him up and he held her for ransom
    In the heart of the cold, cold city
    He had a nasty reputation as a cruel dude
    They said he was ruthless said he was crude
    They had one thing in common: they were good in bed.”

    Weiner and Abedin are the new Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Ali Riza.

    To Hillary, Weiner and Abedin don’t seem like weirdoes, they seem like two kids who give you hope in a glorious future in which Zionist campaign contributions can openly lay down with Gulf State contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

    (To paraphrase an old definition cited by Ben Wattenberg: ‘An American Zionist is a Jew who tries to persuade a second Jew to convince a third Jew to emigrate to Israel’.)

    Hillary shares the establishment view of Israel as an obsolete ethnostate, which fortunately has the West Bank Arabs to prevent it lasting very long as a Jewish entity. Pleasure-seeking US Jews are going along with US foreign policy through incomprehension of its objectives. Ehud Barak knew better, and that is why he offered more that anyone before or since in return for finally settling the status of Arabs in the West Bank.

  106. @candid_observer
    Some real reporting -- as opposed to desperate spinning -- on the matter of the email investigation:

    https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/792719744830812160

    Bottom line: the FBI clearly knows something about some number of the emails.

    Yeah, this thing is shaking out pretty much as I suspected. Independent probe discovers evidence in the course of another investigation, goes upstairs with it, decision to re-open is made. Given the stated volume (“tens of thousands”) however I’m pretty sure that these are being discovered and/or recovered from Yahoo! or the recycle bin.

    What can I say, anyone who didn’t go to college starting in the Y2K and/or hasn’t bothered to learn something will be completely in the dark about how computers, emails, and the internet actually work. Particularly the “movers” and “shakers”: they don’t have the time or the patience to learn any details. That’s why they have staff.

    As to whether there’s a smoking gun here: I have no idea. But it certainly does and will make HRC look bad.

  107. @International Jew
    You're overthinking this, Steve. They were just two attractive young people, attracted to one another by nature. And sure, they shared an interest in politics, which helped as does any other shared interest.

    Huma really dug Anthony, if you watch the press conference where she read her statement and stood by her man – or she is an amazing actress. I want to hate her on principle, but she seems like a decent woman.

    Chicks dig jerks. Uber-jerk Weiner has “game” as the PUA boys say.

  108. @eah

    eah-’Russia and Syria have been allies for decades -Treaty of Friendship-’

    No friendship between nations, just interests. Russia has a permanent interest in a Navy base in the Eastern Med: either Greece or Turkey could close the straits with one howitzer battalion. Or anyone else could close them with one merchant ship dropping smart mines off its bottom.

    ‘whom does the US support? and why?’

    Apparently we support ISIS to trash Syria. Why? Our post-sixties governing class is incompetent, corrupt, and faithless, so who knows. But we are Israel’s ally, and Syria can never be cool with Israel holding the Golan Heights. Not just artillery range of Damascus, it’s line-of-sight tank gun range of Damascus. Israel can’t give the Golan back, because it’s not just artillery range of Tel Aviv, it’s line-of-sight tank gun range of Tel Aviv. Permanent interests. Of course it’s only a problem till Arabs and Jews stop feuding.

  109. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @candid_observer
    My guess is that the FBI may well be able to make reasonable inferences about those emails even without a warrant.

    They could ask Weiner about them, for example -- who would have every incentive to be cooperative. Even to determine whose emails they were, and that an additional warrant was required, they would have to know something about them. They might have metadata on them allowing them to match or not match them up with previous emails. It's not in any way obvious to an outsider just what one needs a warrant for under these circumstances, and how much information may be obtained in its absence. They've got the laptop. The emails are presumably stored on them. They can count the number of the emails. They may well have the password. What they already know may be enough to infer the existence of a smoking gun, especially since Abedin had declared that she had turned in all relevant devices. Frankly, one possibility is that they delved into some of the emails without a warrant, perhaps not even realizing at first they might need one. (Of course this might raise the issue of whether those particular emails can be used in court. I don't see though how it would taint all of the emails, since that search would certainly have been conducted in the end.)

    And of course a very real additional possibility is that it's the Justice Department itself that is obstructing justice here, by slow walking the process of getting a warrant. How hard should this be if they have any sense of urgency? One wonders if part of the motivation for Comey to go to Congress about it was to stop such obstruction.

    But I repeat my basic point: the correct way to think about what Comey did is to see it as his attempt to preserve his reputation. That he chose to do this despite all of the reasons not to do it at this stage, and against the warnings of the DOJ demonstrates the depth of his concern about what is in those emails.

    But I see his actions as reputation-preserving even if he has no info or no damning info from the e-mails so far, because people would be screaming bloody murder if it was discovered after the election that the investigation was still quietly ongoing and it turned up something bad. If there’s nothing then that’s the fault of those who read so much into his statement.

    I think “the American people are sick and tired about hearing about her damn emails”, they care about her passing out and getting thrown into the back of a van.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'll clarify: they are sick of hearing about e-mails unless there's something juicy in them, like Podesta's. Which probably makes this election Wikileaks' call, not Comey's.
  110. @Anonymous
    But I see his actions as reputation-preserving even if he has no info or no damning info from the e-mails so far, because people would be screaming bloody murder if it was discovered after the election that the investigation was still quietly ongoing and it turned up something bad. If there's nothing then that's the fault of those who read so much into his statement.

    I think "the American people are sick and tired about hearing about her damn emails", they care about her passing out and getting thrown into the back of a van.

    I’ll clarify: they are sick of hearing about e-mails unless there’s something juicy in them, like Podesta’s. Which probably makes this election Wikileaks’ call, not Comey’s.

  111. @RonaldB
    It's nuts to say our usage of fossil fuels is optional and due only to the foot-dragging sponsored by the oil companies. The fact is, fossil fuel, including natural gas, is the most efficient, and throwing billions of dollars of government subsidies at "clean energy alternatives" will not do anything except increase the national debt.

    Having said that, the US is easily independent of political ramifications of Middle Eastern oil. North America produces more oil than Saudia Arabia, natural gas and coal are plentiful, and approving the keystone pipeline would make domestically-produced fossil energy even more available. So, even the worst scenario, a Middle Eastern effective boycott, would not have strategic implications, but would at most increase the price of oil and gas moderately.

    If the report is true, that Obama resisted the pressure from Republicans to invade Syria, I have a new-found respect for Obama and continue to hope that Trump considers himself completely separate from the Republican establishment.

    Also, the US can be supportive of Israel vis a vis UN and EU boycotts and one-sided resolutions, but does not need to ally itself with Israel foreign policy. Israel has its own, legitimate interests, which may not coincide with the US. Israel should go its own way, without the collaboration of the CIA. Israel has direct security interests as a neighbor of a hostile Syria and Iran, but it is up to Israel, and not the US, to best protect Israel's vital security.

    US trading partners like Japan and Europe, for example, are more exposed since they do not have the US domestic production capacity, and material disruptions to ME oil supply would set off worldwide economic troubles. Either pipeline would be a relief and a risk, with cheaper supply, but with potential shut offs like the Russian gas pipeline to EU a few years ago. The world is oil dependent, some countries more than others.

  112. @syonredux
    Never underestimate the Israeli factor.

    The default assumption in the ME is that Israelis have gamed out scenarios.

  113. @Mr. Anon
    Economic determinst arguments are always trotted out to explain these geo-political events. While they are not irrelevant, they do not necessarily explain everything. Remember back in 2002-2003, when a lot of people were pushing the idea that the war in Afghanistan was over a proposed pipeline. Well, the war isn't over, and there is still no pipeline. A country riven by civil war and crazy head-chopping-off-jihadists sounds like a lousy place to build a pipeline that could easily be sabotaged. Why not just build it via a different route? Through Turkey? Through Jordan and Israel? Through Saudi Arabia?

    "According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr......"

    And that is supposed to be an authoritative source? I haven't noticed that the third-generation Kennedys are very bright or adept at much of anything.

    The Afghan pipeline never seemed plausible however the Russian involvement and the recent KSA and Iranian oil price actions indicate that oil plays a large role in all of those country policies. The issue has merit regardless of one’s thoughts about RFK Jr.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Certainly oil is important in the goings on in the middle-east. However, I don't think it is necessarily as simple as where this or that planned pipe-line is slated to go. As you point out, oil pricing is perhaps more important. Who pumps the oil, how much they pump, at whose direction they do so, and which currency they take in exchange for it, has a lot to do with things. I am persuaded by the theory that the desire to defend the petrodollar drives a lot of American foreign policy.
  114. @Nico

    Huma is a dangle by an Arab intelligence service of some sort
     
    This has been out in the open for some time, only the presstitutes don't seem go think it worth reporting on. It's called the "Muslim Brotherhood," by the way.

    New theory seen on the “far-right (deep dark) internet”:

    Weiner is a hasbara agent who used his proximity to Huma to spy on Clinton for Israel. Any takers?

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I think identifying Anthony Weiner as a Jew negates two Jewish Nobel Prizes and at least one of Sandy Koufax' no hitters.

    I will only accept Anthony Weiner as a hasbara agent of the Mossad if we also identify Sydney Leathers as his handler.
  115. @Ivy
    The Afghan pipeline never seemed plausible however the Russian involvement and the recent KSA and Iranian oil price actions indicate that oil plays a large role in all of those country policies. The issue has merit regardless of one's thoughts about RFK Jr.

    Certainly oil is important in the goings on in the middle-east. However, I don’t think it is necessarily as simple as where this or that planned pipe-line is slated to go. As you point out, oil pricing is perhaps more important. Who pumps the oil, how much they pump, at whose direction they do so, and which currency they take in exchange for it, has a lot to do with things. I am persuaded by the theory that the desire to defend the petrodollar drives a lot of American foreign policy.

  116. @RonaldB
    It's nuts to say our usage of fossil fuels is optional and due only to the foot-dragging sponsored by the oil companies. The fact is, fossil fuel, including natural gas, is the most efficient, and throwing billions of dollars of government subsidies at "clean energy alternatives" will not do anything except increase the national debt.

    Having said that, the US is easily independent of political ramifications of Middle Eastern oil. North America produces more oil than Saudia Arabia, natural gas and coal are plentiful, and approving the keystone pipeline would make domestically-produced fossil energy even more available. So, even the worst scenario, a Middle Eastern effective boycott, would not have strategic implications, but would at most increase the price of oil and gas moderately.

    If the report is true, that Obama resisted the pressure from Republicans to invade Syria, I have a new-found respect for Obama and continue to hope that Trump considers himself completely separate from the Republican establishment.

    Also, the US can be supportive of Israel vis a vis UN and EU boycotts and one-sided resolutions, but does not need to ally itself with Israel foreign policy. Israel has its own, legitimate interests, which may not coincide with the US. Israel should go its own way, without the collaboration of the CIA. Israel has direct security interests as a neighbor of a hostile Syria and Iran, but it is up to Israel, and not the US, to best protect Israel's vital security.

    Amen, amen, amen.

    Frac, frac, frac.

    Apply Daniel Patrick’s notion of “benign neglect” to the Middle East.

    Israel will do just fine. They certainly did before the US extended significant help in 1968.

    Arabs should just focus on not digging themselves into deeper holes.

    If that requires redrawing borders in places like Syria, so be it.

  117. @Rob McX
    As far as I know, Weiner never actually met anyone he was sexting, or got past the stage of talking dirty to women thousands of miles away. He has ruined his marriage, committed an offence that may land him in prison, and maybe deprived his party of the presidency - and all without leaving his bedroom. That must surely be a record of some kind.

    Pathetic indeed, in that Weiner didn’t even get laid.. There must be something very wrong with this guy.

  118. @FX Enderby
    New theory seen on the "far-right (deep dark) internet":

    Weiner is a hasbara agent who used his proximity to Huma to spy on Clinton for Israel. Any takers?

    I think identifying Anthony Weiner as a Jew negates two Jewish Nobel Prizes and at least one of Sandy Koufax’ no hitters.

    I will only accept Anthony Weiner as a hasbara agent of the Mossad if we also identify Sydney Leathers as his handler.

  119. @Steve Sailer
    They have a child.

    Carlos Danger should have known better for at least two reasons:

    1.) ‘Humanthonazing’ both Jewish and Muslim communities while trying to politically empower yourself through an arranged ecumenical wedlock is never good idea.

    2.) With Billary being your designated shidduch provider, accepting Huma Mahmood Abedin’s role of perfect sham fatale will certainly end with devastating post-connubial consequences for your lecherous libido.

    Sooner or later you’ll have to wake up and smell the lavender!

  120. For multiple reasons, this was the absolute best time for Huma to dump Weiner. They have only been married 6 years so there is no long term marriage (assuming NY is like California). Her income stood to leap up due to her central position in the pay to play insider deals while his looked like they were heading South for good. This means there would be no possibility of alimony for Huma or a settlement that would have gotten her free of alimony. Using the leverage of the underage texting, that pretty much killed Weiner’s ability to get anything more than supervised visits thereby killing child support. This was THE opportunity to dump him, only she had some skeletons in the closet too. The couple deserved each other.

  121. @candid_observer
    My guess is that the FBI may well be able to make reasonable inferences about those emails even without a warrant.

    They could ask Weiner about them, for example -- who would have every incentive to be cooperative. Even to determine whose emails they were, and that an additional warrant was required, they would have to know something about them. They might have metadata on them allowing them to match or not match them up with previous emails. It's not in any way obvious to an outsider just what one needs a warrant for under these circumstances, and how much information may be obtained in its absence. They've got the laptop. The emails are presumably stored on them. They can count the number of the emails. They may well have the password. What they already know may be enough to infer the existence of a smoking gun, especially since Abedin had declared that she had turned in all relevant devices. Frankly, one possibility is that they delved into some of the emails without a warrant, perhaps not even realizing at first they might need one. (Of course this might raise the issue of whether those particular emails can be used in court. I don't see though how it would taint all of the emails, since that search would certainly have been conducted in the end.)

    And of course a very real additional possibility is that it's the Justice Department itself that is obstructing justice here, by slow walking the process of getting a warrant. How hard should this be if they have any sense of urgency? One wonders if part of the motivation for Comey to go to Congress about it was to stop such obstruction.

    But I repeat my basic point: the correct way to think about what Comey did is to see it as his attempt to preserve his reputation. That he chose to do this despite all of the reasons not to do it at this stage, and against the warnings of the DOJ demonstrates the depth of his concern about what is in those emails.

    Either Weiner or Abedin could give consent for the search of the computer, or could be the informant for a search warrant affidavit. Given what they are facing-him for sexting and underage girl, her for violating her immunity agreement-that should happen very quickly if it hasn’t happened already.

  122. @L Woods
    As much as the Brotherhood features in neocon conspiracy theories (because if there's a machiavellian fifth column walking the halls of power of Middle Eastern origins, it's surely Muslims), they don't seem to have been able to translate their apparent reach into much success back at home.

    > As much as the Brotherhood features in neocon conspiracy theories (because if there’s a machiavellian fifth column walking the halls of power of Middle Eastern origins, it’s surely Muslims), they don’t seem to have been able to translate their apparent reach into much success back at home.

    Yep….. it’s odd that guys who’ve never lived in a Gulf country for an amount of time, have strong certainty about social dynamics therein.

    Huma’s parents were completely AVERAGE upper-middle foreign workers in KSA. The security organs would have kicked them out quickly if they were involved in ANYTHING which is bad news for the ruling family. South Asians in KSA or UAE or Qatar etc, live in fear of getting kicked out. Usually being owed 9 months salary. Read the Karachi newspapers.

    Not only that, but they’re not native Arabic speakers. I haven’t done the googling, I don’t know how much Arabic Huma ever picked up herself. KSA does NOT have a cultural theme of integrating with South Asians.

    There’s a fundamental problem the wannabe-Caliphate-nikkim have…. not much real historical basis for such a thing to happen. It only ever happened the FIRST time around only in the sense that the Holy Roman Empire was holy, or Roman.

    In my mind, Huma Abedin is about as Muzzie Fundamentalist as Anthony Weiner is a Undivided-Land-of-Israel settler-activist.

    Match made in heaven. Well, if all else fails, Hillary can still have her little sideline business of being a shadkhaneet.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Huma's parents were not bricklayers. They wove themselves as deeply as is possible for people of their background and ethnicity into Islamist schemes to overturn the infidel world without actually running around screaming alahu akbar.

    Huma went to Saudi Arabia when she was 2 and stayed there until she was 18. Are you sure she doesn't speak arabic? Until she became Hillary's body woman her causes and interests were entirely Islamist.

    I have no idea what Huma's ambitions are but it would be extraordinary if she were not sympathetic to an Islamist agenda - with all that implies.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/312211/huma-abedins-muslim-brotherhood-ties-andrew-c-mccarthy

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2556
  123. They have their warrant for the device

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/us/politics/justice-department-warrant-clinton-abedin-fbi.html?emc=edit_na_20161030&nlid=69443108&ref=cta

    WASHINGTON — Federal investigators have obtained a warrant to begin searching a large cache of emails belonging to a top aide to Hillary Clinton, federal law enforcement officials said Sunday, as prosecutors and F.B.I. agents scrambled to review as much of the information as possible before Election Day.

    IF Daily Mail is accurate, 650,000 emails ….

  124. @Sean
    Maybe not Western married-married. In traditional arranged marriages they have usually fell in love by about a year after they are wed and start having regular sex.

    Perhaps, but by the time of the documentary, it’s several years since they wed and their child is a toddler. Their body language certainly doesn’t convey that these are two people who are lovers – she’s often in a closed posture (arms crossed across her body defensively, leaning away from him) and I don’t think you ever really see any physical affection. You get the sense that he’d be all over her (or anyone else the least bit willing) but she doesn’t remotely reciprocate. Part of it seems to be that Weiner doesn’t possess the ability to interpret other people’s emotions, facial expressions, and body language – there’s one part where he’s re-watching his disastrous performance being interviewed on MSNBC by Lawrence O’Donnell and laughing at his obstinance while Huma is obviously crestfallen and embarrassed for him he just can’t seem to understand it. (This is, of course, at a time when one would think he’d be especially sensitive to his wife’s emotional state because he had just been caught for the second time).

    Now, it is possible that this is because she’s been attending to her mistress in and around DC and he’s been left to his own devices in NYC for a while and they never had an extended period of being stuck together and living a married life.

  125. @Nico

    I was thinking something along the lines of Jewish-Muslim interaction in the Mideast has caused endless trouble for both themselves and anyone else in their orbit, and this marriage is doing ditto. It’s like there’s a curse on the two populations that only operates jointly.
     
    My second apartment in Paris was in the 19th district, which by 2008 was neatly on the border between an old Jewish zone and a not-totally-stagnant but not exactly safe, still mostly Muslim zone. My best friend from college remarked, "Somehow, they always manage to find each other!" I quipped, "Yup, just like Brooklyn and Queens!" to which she said, "I was just about to say, 'Brooklyn and Queens'!"

    So it's a thesis that's compelling enough to anyone who's marginally perceptive and who pays attention and isn't brainwashed by The Narrative, at any rate.

    Almost as if they’re naturally attracted to the same habitat.

  126. @flyingtiger
    There is a belief that Wahabbi, the founder of the Wahabbist in islam was Jewish. Also the Saudi's are Jewish also. In that light, the Huma/ Weiner marriage does not seem that strange.

    Many Shi’ites think the Saudis are Jews.
    Many Sunnis think the Shi’ites are Jews.
    Many anti-Semites think “The Jews” aren’t really Jews.

    And so on.

  127. @PiltdownMan

    Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it’s best to know now if he’s pulling a Weiner on his wife.
     
    His wife, Dalya Bharara, has a Muslim father and a Jewish mother. There seems to be little public information on her other than that, and that she is a "non-practising lawyer".

    Preet Bharara is following the path that Rudy Guiliani took as US attorney for the Southern District, and Eliot Spitzer did as New York State Attorney, in prosecuting high profile cases (some on Wall Street) in establishing a public identity as a results oriented, hard charging defender of the public.

    I'm not sure what political office Bharara aspires to. He is foreign born, so it is probably Governor or Mayor, or possibly Senator.

    His brother made a half-billion dollars from selling a dotcom to Amazon. He has stated that he had a meaningful chunk of equity in it, though I doubt he could self-finance a run for office in New York, where political races are expensive.

    I don't know how big an Indian-American electorate there is in New York, but going by the comments on various online articles about him, they hate his guts—they seem to think he is an Uncle Tom figure. Apparently, this is because some of the targets of his high profile prosecutions were from the old country, and they figure he went after them simply to establish that he was fully assimilated.

    some of the targets of his high profile prosecutions were from the old country, and they figure he went after them simply to establish that he was fully assimilated.

    Two disgusting conclusions: (1) it takes an outsider to go after them, and (2) Indian-Americans don’t think assimilation is a positive.

    Even if we shut down immigration, what do we do about (1)?

  128. @reiner Tor
    In Egypt, Netanyahu actually said that he preferred Mubarak. In Syria, he never said he preferred Assad, and his former ambassador to the US as well as a prominent intelligence official said that Israel actually preferred Salafists to Assad.

    And in Egypt, Israeli actions certainly supported the military government (IIRC they cooperated with them against Islamists hiding in the Sinai desert), while in the case of Syria, they are clearly supporting the rebels.

    For Israel, Egypt and Syria are two totally different cases, because Iran and because Hezbollah. Interestingly, the Egyptian military government is the Saudis' preference, too, since in Egypt they are opposed to Islamism. Apparently again because Iran and because Shia.

    And yes, I'm not talking about American Jews, I'm talking about Israel.

    This is the first I’ve heard of Israelis preferring Salafists. If that’s true and if that’s official policy, then I stand corrected, but it still looks to me like Israel, Iran and Assad all have a common enemy in the Islamic State. And common enemies are the basis of many unlikely partnerships in that part of the world.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    Israel considers the Syria/Hezbollah/Iran axis its main enemy and has for some time. They've launched several raids against the Syrian gov over the past decade or so, even during the civil war
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Syrian_ceasefire_line_incidents_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War
  129. @Karl
    > As much as the Brotherhood features in neocon conspiracy theories (because if there’s a machiavellian fifth column walking the halls of power of Middle Eastern origins, it’s surely Muslims), they don’t seem to have been able to translate their apparent reach into much success back at home.

    Yep..... it's odd that guys who've never lived in a Gulf country for an amount of time, have strong certainty about social dynamics therein.

    Huma's parents were completely AVERAGE upper-middle foreign workers in KSA. The security organs would have kicked them out quickly if they were involved in ANYTHING which is bad news for the ruling family. South Asians in KSA or UAE or Qatar etc, live in fear of getting kicked out. Usually being owed 9 months salary. Read the Karachi newspapers.

    Not only that, but they're not native Arabic speakers. I haven't done the googling, I don't know how much Arabic Huma ever picked up herself. KSA does NOT have a cultural theme of integrating with South Asians.

    There's a fundamental problem the wannabe-Caliphate-nikkim have.... not much real historical basis for such a thing to happen. It only ever happened the FIRST time around only in the sense that the Holy Roman Empire was holy, or Roman.

    In my mind, Huma Abedin is about as Muzzie Fundamentalist as Anthony Weiner is a Undivided-Land-of-Israel settler-activist.

    Match made in heaven. Well, if all else fails, Hillary can still have her little sideline business of being a shadkhaneet.

    Huma’s parents were not bricklayers. They wove themselves as deeply as is possible for people of their background and ethnicity into Islamist schemes to overturn the infidel world without actually running around screaming alahu akbar.

    Huma went to Saudi Arabia when she was 2 and stayed there until she was 18. Are you sure she doesn’t speak arabic? Until she became Hillary’s body woman her causes and interests were entirely Islamist.

    I have no idea what Huma’s ambitions are but it would be extraordinary if she were not sympathetic to an Islamist agenda – with all that implies.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/312211/huma-abedins-muslim-brotherhood-ties-andrew-c-mccarthy

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2556

  130. @Almost Missouri
    This is the first I've heard of Israelis preferring Salafists. If that's true and if that's official policy, then I stand corrected, but it still looks to me like Israel, Iran and Assad all have a common enemy in the Islamic State. And common enemies are the basis of many unlikely partnerships in that part of the world.

    Israel considers the Syria/Hezbollah/Iran axis its main enemy and has for some time. They’ve launched several raids against the Syrian gov over the past decade or so, even during the civil war

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Syrian_ceasefire_line_incidents_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War

  131. @Gabriel M
    It's objective, demonstrable fact that Israeli government was pushing for the U.S. to support Mubarak at the same time that American neocons were supporting the *brave people fighting for freedom blah, blah, blah*. The same is not the case for Syria and you can't infer one from the other because Mubarak was a cold ally, whilst Assad was a cold enemy. No-one really knows what Isgov's role has been in the Syria conflict besides what has been made plain, namely preventing Hizb'Allah from using the situation to improve its missile position vis a vis Israel.

    What we do know is that Isgov is NOT supporting the mad rush to a global conflict with Russia over the Syria issue. That is to say, even if it is true that Isgov was part of some nefarious scheme to explode Syria, they're not interested in turning it into a global conflagration like USG and much of the EU.
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-explains-Russias-interest-in-cooperating-with-Israel-468517



    Parenthetically, I will note that Paleocons used to argue passionately that the US-Israel alliance was bad because it worsened relations with the oil-rich Arab states. But then Israel started chumming up with oil-rich Arab states, so the new argument is that the US needs to cut Israel loose so it can pursue relations with its natural allies like, umm, irredentist Shiite militias and ummm stuff, oil-rich Arab states be damned.

    Thanks for your take on this.

    Paleocons used to argue passionately that the US-Israel alliance was bad because it worsened relations with the oil-rich Arab states. But then Israel started chumming up with oil-rich Arab states, so the new argument is that the US needs to cut Israel loose so it can pursue relations with its natural allies like, umm, irredentist Shiite militias and ummm stuff, oil-rich Arab states be damned.

    To be honest, oil-rich Arab states seemed less crazy thirty years ago. While Iran seemed way crazier. Now the Gulf Arabs are supporting ISIS (according to a certain former US Secretary of State, at least), and of course dozens of other militias just slightly saner than ISIS. It doesn’t make much sense to help them with this, nor to prevent Russia and Iran from effectively opposing these militias.

    I think the US has very little interests in the Middle East. If one state gets stronger, the rest will combine against it (this was and still is the case with Iran certainly), and of course Israel wanted the US to destroy Iraq, so now it shouldn’t complain that Iran got that much stronger. Should’ve thought harder before. I guess if Sharon told Dubya in 2002 in no uncertain terms that he didn’t need the Iraq war at all, Dubya might have listened. Or if Netanyahu didn’t tell Congress in 2002 that destroying Saddam would result in the blossoming of the first Arab democracy in the Middle East, and instead told them that Arab democracy was impossible for the foreseeable future, it might have helped, too. At the very least, Israel would have the right to complain about a stronger Iran. I often think that Sharon and Netanyahu not only knew this would result in chaos (I’m sure they knew that much) and were happy with it, but they also loved the possible consequence of creating a huge Shia state in Iraq, namely, that the Gulf Arabs would be forced into Israel’s arms as a result of all this.

    The Gulf Arabs were in a less enviable position, because even if they had tried to stop the madness in Iraq, probably nobody would’ve listened to them, and since militarily they are shit (and they know this), there’s no way they could’ve influenced the outcome much. At least not against Israel, that’s for sure. So even if they are vile, in a sense they are just reacting to a situation not of their creation, since they are – rightly or wrongly – much afraid of a growing Iranian regional power. That’s also the reason why the Palestinians now need to cozy up to the Shia, and are supporting Assad in Syria, since obviously the Gulf Arabs stopped supporting them after becoming de facto Israel allies. So now there is a collection of ethnic and religious minorities (not the best guys themselves, to be sure) fighting against a most crazy Islamist Sunni Arab majority, where, to be honest, I don’t feel like supporting the craziest elements. Even if Israel and the Gulf Arabs are doing exactly that.

    • Replies: @jack ryan
    Agreed.

    Also the world wide oil glut with great franking Oil reserves in North Dakota enables us to take the position

    Who needs these nut cases?

    It's like trying to pick sides in Black African tribal slaughters. Yeah, I guess I prefer the Tutsis to the Hutus but I mostly prefer that neither groups flood Minnesota and then on to Middle Tennessee.
    , @Gabriel M
    It's certainly the case that the Likud F-d up big time by allying itself with the neocons and their whacky Iraq idea. As to Bibi's motivation - I agree with you that it's unlikely he sincerely believed that it would result in a blossoming democracy (though there were people in the Likud, now thankfully marginalized who certainly did, Russian emigres looming large amongst them). On the other hand, it's hard to see how he could be sanguine about the boost it has given to Iran. The best I can explain it is that it fits into Bibi's general method which is "all tactics, no strategy". His overriding goal (as now) then was to maintain the support of the American empire without having to create a Palestinian state, whilst staying in power. He's a particularly single-minded example of the animating principle in the Israeli centre right: don't commit suicide and try and wait it out until the situation allows you room for action (49 years and counting now....)

    On the other hand, I don't think Bibi predicted quite a what a mess it would be or he would have been more careful not to have his fingerprints all over it. Perhaps he thought that when the s**t started hitting the fan the American would grow a clue and install a puppet hardman rather than going all in for democracy (=chaos). But really who knows? The whole thing is nuts.
  132. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Nico

    I was thinking something along the lines of Jewish-Muslim interaction in the Mideast has caused endless trouble for both themselves and anyone else in their orbit, and this marriage is doing ditto. It’s like there’s a curse on the two populations that only operates jointly.
     
    My second apartment in Paris was in the 19th district, which by 2008 was neatly on the border between an old Jewish zone and a not-totally-stagnant but not exactly safe, still mostly Muslim zone. My best friend from college remarked, "Somehow, they always manage to find each other!" I quipped, "Yup, just like Brooklyn and Queens!" to which she said, "I was just about to say, 'Brooklyn and Queens'!"

    So it's a thesis that's compelling enough to anyone who's marginally perceptive and who pays attention and isn't brainwashed by The Narrative, at any rate.

    Most of the Jews in Paris are Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East and are either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants, so it isn’t too suprising that they would move to similar affordable areas where there are restaurants and shops that cater to Middle Eastern immigrant tastes. There aren’t that many Ashkenazi or old Sephardic Jewish families left in France thanks to the Nazis. Those more affluent Jews tend not to live right next door to the Arabs.

  133. Let’s take 2 polls one for the men one for the women.

    Who’s is physically uglier, more repellent.

    The Jewish guy/husband Anthony Weiner or

    The SE Asian/Saudi Islamic woman/wife Huma Abedin?

    I think it’s a toss up.

    It’s definitely a strong case for birth control.

  134. @reiner Tor
    Thanks for your take on this.

    Paleocons used to argue passionately that the US-Israel alliance was bad because it worsened relations with the oil-rich Arab states. But then Israel started chumming up with oil-rich Arab states, so the new argument is that the US needs to cut Israel loose so it can pursue relations with its natural allies like, umm, irredentist Shiite militias and ummm stuff, oil-rich Arab states be damned.
     
    To be honest, oil-rich Arab states seemed less crazy thirty years ago. While Iran seemed way crazier. Now the Gulf Arabs are supporting ISIS (according to a certain former US Secretary of State, at least), and of course dozens of other militias just slightly saner than ISIS. It doesn't make much sense to help them with this, nor to prevent Russia and Iran from effectively opposing these militias.

    I think the US has very little interests in the Middle East. If one state gets stronger, the rest will combine against it (this was and still is the case with Iran certainly), and of course Israel wanted the US to destroy Iraq, so now it shouldn't complain that Iran got that much stronger. Should've thought harder before. I guess if Sharon told Dubya in 2002 in no uncertain terms that he didn't need the Iraq war at all, Dubya might have listened. Or if Netanyahu didn't tell Congress in 2002 that destroying Saddam would result in the blossoming of the first Arab democracy in the Middle East, and instead told them that Arab democracy was impossible for the foreseeable future, it might have helped, too. At the very least, Israel would have the right to complain about a stronger Iran. I often think that Sharon and Netanyahu not only knew this would result in chaos (I'm sure they knew that much) and were happy with it, but they also loved the possible consequence of creating a huge Shia state in Iraq, namely, that the Gulf Arabs would be forced into Israel's arms as a result of all this.

    The Gulf Arabs were in a less enviable position, because even if they had tried to stop the madness in Iraq, probably nobody would've listened to them, and since militarily they are shit (and they know this), there's no way they could've influenced the outcome much. At least not against Israel, that's for sure. So even if they are vile, in a sense they are just reacting to a situation not of their creation, since they are - rightly or wrongly - much afraid of a growing Iranian regional power. That's also the reason why the Palestinians now need to cozy up to the Shia, and are supporting Assad in Syria, since obviously the Gulf Arabs stopped supporting them after becoming de facto Israel allies. So now there is a collection of ethnic and religious minorities (not the best guys themselves, to be sure) fighting against a most crazy Islamist Sunni Arab majority, where, to be honest, I don't feel like supporting the craziest elements. Even if Israel and the Gulf Arabs are doing exactly that.

    Agreed.

    Also the world wide oil glut with great franking Oil reserves in North Dakota enables us to take the position

    Who needs these nut cases?

    It’s like trying to pick sides in Black African tribal slaughters. Yeah, I guess I prefer the Tutsis to the Hutus but I mostly prefer that neither groups flood Minnesota and then on to Middle Tennessee.

  135. @CK
    More in the nature of a cousinly quarrel.

    Population genetics research demonstrates that Ashkenazi Jews aren’t any closer genetically to modern Levantine Arabs than they are to Italians, and they are genetically even less close to peninsular Arabs.

  136. @whorefinder
    And it was Hillary, by the accounts, that pushed Huma into having a relationship with Mr. Danger. Carlos, being the horndog, was all for it, but Huma (from the stories) was giving off strong "no" vibes----till Sick Hillary shoved them together on the Vineyard one summer/

    Perhaps Hillary convinced Huma that being single AND sleeping in Hillary's bed was far too suspicious, and that Weiner (a former Schumer aide, and rising political star) was a good match/cover for the Saudi Princess.

    Me gets the sense that Hillary "groomed" Huma, in more ways than one.

    P.S. Chuck Schumer had Weiner as his aide and gave him help in his rise in Congress (and in the NYC election he flopped in, IIRC). Perhaps we should start looking at Schumer's other former aides to see if Schumer' judgment was just as bad with them---for example, current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (i.e. Manhattan) Preet Bharara. I wonder if Bharara has any skeletons in his closet like Weiner---maybe they were drinking buddies back in the day? Schumer's penchant for loving the camera seems to have made him choose at least one aide addicted to the camera---both in private and in public. Is Bharara similar? I ask this only because Bharara has done some high-level prosecutions to get his name out there---political prosecutions. Bharara is clearly climbing the ladder for more afterwards, so it's best to know now if he's pulling a Weiner on his wife.

    Wow, I didn’t know Chuck Schumer groomed Anthony Wiener.

    These two might be the most loathsome, slimy New Yawkers out there – their accents are terrible.

  137. @Steve Sailer
    They have a child.

    So do Hillary and Bill. How much sex has occurred between them in their marriage?

  138. @Ivy
    Syrian troubles are over oil pipelines.

    by Gaius Publius

    Summary first: We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    I'm not sure most Americans have figured out what's happening in Syria, because so much of what we hear is confusing to us, and really, we know so little of the context for it. Is it an insurgency against a brutal ruler? Is it a group of insurgencies struggling for power in a nearly failed state? Is it a proxy war expressing the territorial and ideological interests of the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Iran?

    Or something else?

    According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it is something else — a war between competing national interests to build, or not build, a pipeline to the Mediterranean so natural gas can be exported to Europe. Inconveniently for Syria, that nation lies along an obvious pipeline route.

    Which makes it another war between interests for money — something not very hard to understand at all.

    Here's Kennedy's argument via EcoWatch. This is a long piece, well worth a full read, but I'll try to present just the relevant sections here.

    The Historical Context: Decades of CIA-Sponsored Coups and Counter-Coups in Syria

    Kennedy's introductory section contains an excellent examination of the history of U.S. involvement in Syria starting in the 1950s with the Cold War machinations of the Eisenhower-appointed Dulles brothers, John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA. Together, they effectively ruled U.S. foreign policy.

    Kennedy writes (my emphasis):
    Syria: Another Pipeline War

    ... America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—obscure to the American people yet well known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic Jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIS. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely to only compound the crisis. Moreover, our enemies delight in our ignorance.

    ... [W]e need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent Jihadism as a Cold War weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.

    During the 1950's, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a cold war neutral zone and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab Nationalism—which CIA Director Allan [sic] Dulles equated with communism—particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies which they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the CIA's Director of Plans, Frank Wisner, and Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in September of 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect."

    The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949—barely a year after the agency's creation. Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March of 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Kuwaiti, hesitated to approve the Trans Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation, the CIA engineered a coup, replacing al-Kuwaiti with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, 14 weeks into his regime.
    Kennedy then details the history of coups and counter-coups in and against Syria, and concludes this section with this:
    Thanks in large part to Allan Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, sat on a secret committee charged with investigating CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mid-East. The so called “Bruce Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials.

    The report blamed the CIA for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root “in the many countries in the world today." ... A parade of Iranian and Syrian dictators, including Bashar al-Assad and his father, have invoked the history of the CIA's bloody coups as a pretext for their authoritarian rule, repressive tactics and their need for a strong Russian alliance. These stories are therefore well known to the people of Syria and Iran who naturally interpret talk of U.S. intervention in the context of that history.

    While the compliant American press parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian, many Syrians see the present crisis as just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics. Before rushing deeper into the conflagration, it would be wise for us to consider the abundant facts supporting that perspective.
    So much for our supposed interest in "humanitarian" intervention in Syria. From a Syrian point of view, it has never been thus. It has been about pipelines since 1949, and they understand that, even if we don't.

    The Current Conflagration

    Kennedy then turns to the present, or the near-present. Refer to the map above as you read:
    A Pipeline War

    In [the Syrians'] view, our war against Bashar Assad did not begin with the peaceful civil protests of the Arab Spring in 2011. Instead it began in 2000 when Qatar proposed to construct a $10 billion, 1,500km pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.

    Qatar shares with Iran, the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the world's richest natural gas repository. The international trade embargo, until recently, prohibited Iran from selling gas abroad and ensured that Qatar's gas could only reach European markets if it is liquefied and shipped by sea, a route that restricts volume and dramatically raises costs.

    The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni Monarchy by giving them a foothold in Shia dominated Syria.

    The Saudi's geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the Kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S. sponsored Shia takeover in Iraq as a demotion to its regional power and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
    Which puts the Qatari pipeline squarely opposite to Russia's national interest — natural gas (methane) sales to Europe.
    Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria “to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
    That was likely the last straw vis-à-vis the U.S. Which brings us to another pipeline, the so-called "Islamic Pipeline" (see map above):
    "Assad further enraged the Gulf's Sunni monarchs by endorsing a Russian approved “Islamic pipeline" running from Iran's side of the gas field through Syria and to the ports of Lebanon. The Islamic pipeline would make Shia Iran instead of Sunni Qatar, the principal supplier to the European energy market and dramatically increase Tehran's influence in the Mid-East and the world. Israel also was understandably determined to derail the Islamic pipeline which would enrich Iran and Syria and presumably strengthen their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    Another, competing pipeline which would run through Syrian territory, but this time carrying Iranian gas instead of Qatari gas. Thus the demonizing of Assad as evil in the mold of Saddam Hussein, instead of just a run-of-the-mill Middle East autocrat, as bad as some but better than others. Kennedy includes a good section on the history of the al-Assad family's rule of Syria, including this information from top reporters Sy Hersh and Robert Parry:
    According to Hersh, “He certainly wasn't beheading people every Wednesday like the Saudis do in Mecca." Another veteran journalist, Bob Parry, echoes that assessment. “No one in the region has clean hands but in the realms of torture, mass killings, civil liberties and supporting terrorism, Assad is much better than the Saudis."
    In September 2013, the Sunni states involved in the Qatar-Turkey pipeline were so determined to remove Syrian opposition to the pipeline that they offered, via John Kerry, to carry the whole cost of an U.S. invasion to topple al-Assad.
    Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL27): “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly Yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
    Obama's response:
    Despite pressure from Republicans, Barrack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to “moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
    The rest is a history of provocation and over-reaction — a great deal of both — and chaos and death in Syria. Kennedy provides much detail here, at one point adding:
    [Syria's] moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war. They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian backed tyranny and the vicious Jihadi Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation minted in either Washington or Moscow. The super powers have left no options for an idealistic future that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
    I'll leave it there, but again, do read the entire piece if you want to truly understand what's going on in Syria, and what is about to go on.

    Bottom Line

    Bottom line, it's as Kennedy said: "No one wants to die for a pipeline" ... but many do and will.

    I'll offer three thoughts. One, if we weren't so determined to be deeply dependent on fossil fuels, this would be their war, not ours. Two, we are deeply dependent on fossil fuels because of the political machinations of the oil companies, their CEOs, and the banks and hedge funds who fund them, all of whom pay our government officials — via campaign contributions and the revolving door — to prolong that dependence. We're here because the holders of big oil money want us here.

    And three, keep all this in mind during the term of the next president. It will help you make sense of the phony warrior-cum-humanitarian arguments we're almost certain to be subjected to.

    We have been at war in Syria over pipelines since 1949. This is just the next mad phase.

    This isn’t our war. North America is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. In order to sell our gas to Europe or anywhere else, it must be liquified and shipped, so we can’t compete with Russia or gulf states for the EU market anyway. Syria has absolutely nothing to do with our consumption of fossil fuels. The only reason we’re involved in Siria is that the quatar turkey pipeline would weaken Russias economy and military.

  139. @Anonymous
    Nearly everything we get from the MSM about any of this- Weiner emails, what it means for Hillary, Russian govt are the ones hacking previous emails, etc. is all suspect, frankly. We really can't take any of it at face value. The MSM has been clearly biased towards the Dems, even in collusion with them.

    For all we really know, this could be a scheme to dispel Hillary's felonious email debacle in the eye of the public right before the election- maybe in a few days, they declare that,"hey, her emails on Huma/Weiner's phone were all minor things, so she must've been telling the truth that the other large batch of emails (which she bit-bleached!!!) were about yoga, wedding planning and the like."And such a summary might also allow them to try to diffuse the increasing recognition by the public that the MSM has been colluding with the Dems ("see, we reported on it!").

    I always assumed the hackers were american nerds, not Russian nerds. Either way it’s irrelevant, Russia could just as easily buy data from nerds in America than they could hack it themselves. I laugh when I hear claims that Russia hacked the emails, no nerds hacked the emails. We’re they Russian nerds, possibly but who cares that is irrelevant.
    Megan Kelly is saying that Huma had all her emails forwarded to her personal yahoo account, and Alex Jones is saying that when yahoo was hacked in 2014 is when wiki leaks got all of these emails. In fact anyone who has a yahoo account got their entire email history hacked when that happened. It’s too much data for anyone to care about, unless you are a high profile public figure.
    Lastly, I doubt there are any state secrets on there, and if there are, they aren’t very important. Important state secrets aren’t kept on networks connected to the internet, you need a Snowden with a thumb drive for those to get out.

  140. @reiner Tor
    Thanks for your take on this.

    Paleocons used to argue passionately that the US-Israel alliance was bad because it worsened relations with the oil-rich Arab states. But then Israel started chumming up with oil-rich Arab states, so the new argument is that the US needs to cut Israel loose so it can pursue relations with its natural allies like, umm, irredentist Shiite militias and ummm stuff, oil-rich Arab states be damned.
     
    To be honest, oil-rich Arab states seemed less crazy thirty years ago. While Iran seemed way crazier. Now the Gulf Arabs are supporting ISIS (according to a certain former US Secretary of State, at least), and of course dozens of other militias just slightly saner than ISIS. It doesn't make much sense to help them with this, nor to prevent Russia and Iran from effectively opposing these militias.

    I think the US has very little interests in the Middle East. If one state gets stronger, the rest will combine against it (this was and still is the case with Iran certainly), and of course Israel wanted the US to destroy Iraq, so now it shouldn't complain that Iran got that much stronger. Should've thought harder before. I guess if Sharon told Dubya in 2002 in no uncertain terms that he didn't need the Iraq war at all, Dubya might have listened. Or if Netanyahu didn't tell Congress in 2002 that destroying Saddam would result in the blossoming of the first Arab democracy in the Middle East, and instead told them that Arab democracy was impossible for the foreseeable future, it might have helped, too. At the very least, Israel would have the right to complain about a stronger Iran. I often think that Sharon and Netanyahu not only knew this would result in chaos (I'm sure they knew that much) and were happy with it, but they also loved the possible consequence of creating a huge Shia state in Iraq, namely, that the Gulf Arabs would be forced into Israel's arms as a result of all this.

    The Gulf Arabs were in a less enviable position, because even if they had tried to stop the madness in Iraq, probably nobody would've listened to them, and since militarily they are shit (and they know this), there's no way they could've influenced the outcome much. At least not against Israel, that's for sure. So even if they are vile, in a sense they are just reacting to a situation not of their creation, since they are - rightly or wrongly - much afraid of a growing Iranian regional power. That's also the reason why the Palestinians now need to cozy up to the Shia, and are supporting Assad in Syria, since obviously the Gulf Arabs stopped supporting them after becoming de facto Israel allies. So now there is a collection of ethnic and religious minorities (not the best guys themselves, to be sure) fighting against a most crazy Islamist Sunni Arab majority, where, to be honest, I don't feel like supporting the craziest elements. Even if Israel and the Gulf Arabs are doing exactly that.

    It’s certainly the case that the Likud F-d up big time by allying itself with the neocons and their whacky Iraq idea. As to Bibi’s motivation – I agree with you that it’s unlikely he sincerely believed that it would result in a blossoming democracy (though there were people in the Likud, now thankfully marginalized who certainly did, Russian emigres looming large amongst them). On the other hand, it’s hard to see how he could be sanguine about the boost it has given to Iran. The best I can explain it is that it fits into Bibi’s general method which is “all tactics, no strategy”. His overriding goal (as now) then was to maintain the support of the American empire without having to create a Palestinian state, whilst staying in power. He’s a particularly single-minded example of the animating principle in the Israeli centre right: don’t commit suicide and try and wait it out until the situation allows you room for action (49 years and counting now….)

    On the other hand, I don’t think Bibi predicted quite a what a mess it would be or he would have been more careful not to have his fingerprints all over it. Perhaps he thought that when the s**t started hitting the fan the American would grow a clue and install a puppet hardman rather than going all in for democracy (=chaos). But really who knows? The whole thing is nuts.

  141. @biz
    CLASSIC anti-Israel internet comment!

    Classic because in taking something that a back-bencher Arab parliamentarian in Israel did and trying to use it to to make Jews look bad it is following the standard formula: distort the facts, even to the point of being the opposite of what they actually are, in order to try to make uninformed people turn against Israel.

    If people were less stupid about Israel, you would have heard about that incident and said "Wow, it is great that Israel is a democracy where even Arabs, even minority Arabs such as Druze as this guy is, serve in the Parliament, and it is also great that they are a free country where people, even those Druze, can say silly things to the media. "

    Swell! So now I’M the bad guy.

  142. This whole Weiner thing is hilarious. WTF is wrong with him?

    I note that the press has continually misrepesented the separation from his wife. The 15-y.o. girl came later. Not that anything published seems to suggest he tried to set up a meeting with her, but his suggestions are ugly at times.

    I recommend that any Unzer who hasn’t, read the original Daily Mail article on his comms with the girl, it is full of really weird stuff, on both sides.
    Screenshots, mail transcripts, etc.

    She said (to Weiner) that she was writing a book about him, suppose she must have managed at least a few thousand words, that would be entertaining to read!

    One must wonder to what extent Humus Abedin had been satisfying Hill’s special emotional needs.

    Weiner is an idiot, but maybe with a little constant problem at home. Not that it excuses him.

    He is such a craven idiot that it’s made me laugh out loud.

    Even better, whatever the FBI is looking at on his devices was overlooked in the earlier phone-smashing and PC bit-bleaching.

    Nobody will read this post, but I suggest Charles Danger, Carlos Danger, and Carl Danger as pseudonyms for new Unz posters, for the lulz!

  143. […] Recall what the Russia Analyst has written previously on this topic: those who scream ‘Russians!’ the loudest, such as ex deputy CIA director Mike Morell, have the most to hide regarding their own ties to foreign interests specifically the Sunni Arab Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia Hillary herself admitted in an email were funding terrorism. Furthermore, as Roger J. Stone and others have alleged, Huma Abedin herself may be an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood as her parents most certainly were and worked with Islamist charities linked to terror financing after raising her for several years in the Saudi Kingdom. […]

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.