The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Foreign Policy by Intimidation
GOP Candidates Show How It's Done
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The media are anointing former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina as the winner of last Wednesday’s second Republican presidential-aspirant debate. They are saying that she was the best prepared and most convincing speaker, and, indeed, maybe she was. But what is being largely ignored is the actual content of the so-called debate, which was supposed to be focused on foreign policy. Presuming that all the potential candidates had been assiduously primed on the major issues by their advisers, what might have been informed opinion was instead pathetically ignorant and, more than that, dangerous.

Note for example what Fiorina had to say about her policy towards Russia: “Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all. We’ve talked way too much to him. What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland. I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message.”

Yes, Carly would make sure that Putin would get the message that any possible cooperation with the United States would be a non-starter, even in places and situations where there might be common interests. Carly as president promises to take steps that directly threaten Russia on its own doorstep and would lead to a return to the Cold War. And possibly worse than that. Per Fiorina, it would also mean a new budget busting arms race to show how strong we are.

And Fiorina was not winging it alone. Senator Marco Rubio had a fantasy vision that saw him personally flying around the world directly confronting the bad guys. He pledged that “It [Air Force One] would also fly to China, not just to meet with our enemies, not just to meet with those adversaries of ours that are there, but also to meet with those that aspire to freedom and liberty within China. I would even invite them to my inauguration. We would also fly into Moscow and into Russia. And not just meet with the leaders of Russia, but also meet with those who aspire to freedom and liberty in Russia.”

How Rubio would obtain use of the presidential plane before his inauguration and arrange the logistics of flying into capitals of countries that he has labeled enemies to meet with dissidents was not quite clear. And the whole concept of cultivating opposition groups has a vaguely Democratic White House smell to it, a heavy dose of democracy promotion that leads to responsibility to protect, regime change and nation building. I thought Republicans had gone off the boil on that kind of stuff, but Rubio just might be getting bad advice from his posse of neocon advisers which includes Robert Kagan, Eric Edelman and Elliott Abrams.

But the evening’s biggest brouhaha concerned someone who was not even on the stage, GOP gadfly Ann Coulter, who responded to references to Israel by tweeting to her 600,000 fans “How many (expletive) Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” Coulter may have had a point in that American Jews are a small minority of the population who vote heavily Democratic in any event, but she would have been much more accurate if she had stated “Jew” rather than “Jews” as the comments by the potential candidates were really aimed at Sheldon Adelson, casino magnate of Law Vegas, who can literally pay for the entire GOP presidential campaign if he chooses to do so. For Adelson and his Democratic counterpart Haim Saban America’s presidential election is all about Israel.

Coulter understands that talking nice about Israel appeals to evangelical Christians, who many believe to be a sine qua non for any prospective GOP candidate who actually hopes to get nominated. But piqued by the Coulter outburst and out of curiosity I downloaded a transcript of the debate and went through it for any mention of Israel or Jews or even Benjamin Netanyahu. Contrary to Coulter’s assertion, Israel was only mentioned eleven times in the three hour debate and was not cited by Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Scott Walker or Donald Trump. Jews were not discussed at all and Netanyahu only named once, by Fiorina.

But the infrequency of the commentary on Israel should not be interpreted as a suggestion that the discussion of politics as related to the Middle East was any less Israel-centric or even somehow restrained or rational. Indeed, the potential candidates demonstrated an inability to connect with reality and scrupulously avoided basing U.S. policies overseas on actual interests and available resources.

This is Carly Fiorina’s plan for the Middle East and for pressuring reluctant allies in her own words: “You have not heard a plan about Iran from any politician up here, here is my plan. On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel. The second, to the supreme leader, to tell him that unless and until he opens every military and every nuclear facility to real anytime, anywhere inspections by our people, not his, we, the United States of America, will make it as difficult as possible and move money around the global financial system. We can do that, we don’t need anyone’s cooperation to do it. And every ally and every adversary we have in this world will know that the United States in America is back in the leadership business, which is how we must stand with our allies.”

Fiorina does not seem to be aware that by giving her “good friend” Benjamin Netanyahu the ability to draw the United States into a war that he chooses to start she is outsourcing our sovereignty. But perhaps that doesn’t bother her just as she doesn’t seem concerned that baiting Iran will pit the U.S. against the entire world, to include nearly all of America’s allies.

Jeb Bush also focused on the centrality of Israel to contain Iran as part of his foreign policy vision, stating that “the first thing that we need to do is to establish our commitment to Israel which has been altered by this administration. And, make sure that they have the most sophisticated weapons to send a signal to Iran that we have Israel’s back. If we do that, it’s going to create a healthier deterrent effect than anything else I can think of.”

No Jeb, it will do the opposite. It will force Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon to defend itself. And going far beyond Bush, Mike Huckabee presented a broader nightmarish and largely fantasized view of a clash of civilizations, stating “This is really about the survival of Western civilization. This is not just a little conflict with a Middle Eastern country that we’ve just now given over $100 billion to, the equivalent in U.S. terms is $5 trillion. This threatens Israel immediately, this threatens the entire Middle East, but it threatens the United States of America. And we can’t treat a nuclear Iranian government as if it is just some government that would like to have power. This is a government for 36 years has killed Americans, they kidnapped Americans, they have maimed Americans. They have sponsored terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, and they threaten the very essence of Western civilization. At the end of my presidency I would like to believe that the world would be a safe place, and there wouldn’t be the threats. Not only to the U.S., but to Israel and our allies, because we would have the most incredible well-trained, well-equipped, well- prepared military in the history of mankind. And they would know that the commander-in-chief would never send them to a mission without all the resources necessary, but people wouldn’t bully us anymore. Because they would know that that would be an invitation to their destruction.”

Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, presumably would “destroy” bullies just as he destroyed English grammar in his statement. One might observe that if ending international bullying were even vaguely his objective he would start with Washington, which has been abusing the rest of the world since 9/11.

Huckabee’s fellow evangelical Senator Ted Cruz also had something to say, clearly on board with reordering the world in a more muscular Christian fashion, saying “…I also want to respond to several folks up here who said we should trust this Iranian deal, see if the Iranians will comply. Anyone who is paying attention to what Khamenei says knows that they will not comply. There is a reason Khamenei refers to Israel as the little Satan, and America as the great Satan. If I’m elected president our friends and allies across the globe will know that we stand with them. The bust of Winston Churchill will be back in the Oval Office, and the American embassy in Israel will be in Jerusalem.”

Normally semi-rational John Kasich came across as the moderate in the Iran discussion by virtue of not calling for immediate bombs away, stating “Secondly, nobody’s trusting Iran. They violate the deal, we put on the sanctions, and we have the high moral ground to talk to our allies in Europe to get them to go with us. If they don’t go with us, we slap the sanctions on anyway. If they fund these radical groups that threaten Israel and all of the West, then we should rip up the deal and put the sanctions back on.”

Senator Marco Rubio piled on with another complaint, “We are eviscerating our military. And we have a president that is more respectful to the ayatollah in Iran than he is to the prime minister of Israel.” And expanding on his plan to fly around and spread good will to our friends while confounding our enemies the peripatetic presidential wannabe added that “If I’m honored with the opportunity to be president, I hope that our Air Force One will fly, first and foremost, to our allies; in Israel, in South Korea, and Japan. They know we stand with them. That America can be counted on.”

Finally, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who was clearly out of his depth even though the discussion was not exactly cerebral, iced the cake by concluding the foreign policy debate with “And I will tell you this, around the world, I will not shake hands with, I will not meet with, and I will not agree to anything with a country that says death to us and death to Israel and holds our hostages while we sign agreements with them. It will be an America that be strong and resolute, and will once again be able to stick out its chest and say, ‘we truly are the greatest nation in the world, because we live our lives that way, each and every day.’”

Christie’s rant was a fitting conclusion for the evening, underlining the essential Republican foreign policy message, which is that basically, as the esteemed George W. Bush put it, “you are either with us or against us.” We don’t have to talk to foreign leaders we don’t like and if they persist in the error of their ways we send in the cruise missiles. Only Senator Rand Paul and John Kasich indicated clearly that they would hesitate before the bombs start to drop.

GOP-think also has an underlying racist tone to it, with the presumption that those not quite Caucasian foreign people are not really like us, don’t think like us and can be shot or droned on sight when they fail to heed our advice. It’s not about Israel per se or about anything that would make sense to any disinterested observer. It is all about having a “security zone” that is global in reach and preempts the rights of anyone else. It is coupled with superpower hubris driven by an “exceptionalism”-derived unwillingness to treat people who are not Americans with any respect or consideration. Washington reflexively turns potential friends into enemies at every opportunity and perseveres in a foreign policy based on a whole basket of false premises that has been disastrous vis-à-vis any actual United States interests. Unfortunately for the American people the likely alternative to all this blatant and dangerous nonsense is Hillary.

Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Kiza says:

    The stupid, the corrupt and the bellicose. No wonder that, among this bunch, Trump is definitely starting to look like a gentleman and an intellectual of virtue.

    Bellicosity is the best indicator of the decline – the still powerful does not have to talk tough and especially not to his/her own.

    • Replies: @Realist
  2. Mark Green says: • Website

    What a bunch of arrogant dopes. Their rhetorical hate-speech however did not begin only as recently as 9/11 . No, it is a product of decades of Israeli-centric propaganda, media indoctrination and superPAC slush funds–many created by the usual suspects.

    America has been captured in a bloodless coup.

    On the surface, everything seems ‘normal’. But there’s something terribly wrong in our culture. Washington’s Best and Brightest now parrot Likud. How did the Israeli mindset come to contaminate our nation so thoroughly?

    If policy and rhetoric are any indicator, it seems that the world’s greatest superpower is utterly paranoid. We’re under ‘threat’! It’s constant, it’s unprovoked, and it’s escalating.

    Unfortunately, when a nation feels that it owns the world and deserves to manage it without authorization, then even a regional blister such as SIS looks like an existential threat.

    Like Israel, virtuous global America is being attacked for no reason except that we’re free and we’re wonderful! We must fight back. It’s time to get tough. It’s time for war!

    This pathetic drama will not end well.

  3. Avery says:

    {What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland. I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic States. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message.}

    These tough talking empty suits are disgusting and contemptible.
    “I” would do this.
    “I” would do that.
    You would do none of it, Madam: overwhelmingly men will do those things and overwhelmingly men will get killed in useless foreign wars while chickenhawks like you will go on speaking* tours after causing the deaths of 1000s of American young men, and adding more trillions in debt.

    And the overtaxed American taxpayers are the ones who would rebuild the sixth fleet.
    And that comment shows how out of touch she is: the days of massive fleets are over.
    Massive ships and massive fleets are anachronisms today, when confronting major powers like Russia and China.
    Very cheap missiles and relatively cheap jets will sink billion dollar capital ships with little difficulty.

    And Fiorina irreparably ruined one of the greatest American engineering companies, HP.
    She is worse than useless.
    The fact that idiots like her are running for POTUS and have an even chance of winning shows what a circus the US Presidency has become.


    • Replies: @Jim
  4. Questions for the next debate:

    1. What is the treaty of alliance between USA and Israel?

    2. Where can American citizens find the records of the Senate and House debate on ratification of that treaty?

    3. If US-Israel relationship is not based on a treaty but on executive agreements, have the representatives of the American people been given access to the complete details of those agreements?

    4. If US-Israel relationship is not based on a treaty but on executive agreements, isn’t it true that such an agreement can be abrogated by a future president? Tom Cotton and 47 senators assured Iran that such was the case with regard to an agreement with Iran.

    5. In 1975 Richard Nixon and Golda Meier reached a “clandestine agreement: Israel is allowed to be a nuclear power.”
    Isn’t that a violation of USA’s obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?
    Mr. Kasich, doesn’t such a “clandestine agreement” vitiate the “moral high ground” of the USA?
    And, as in #3 above, isn’t an executive agreement subject to cancellation by a subsequent president if he/she indeed claims to occupy “moral high ground”?

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  5. Those guys are lunatics. I’m staggered.

    Wish you didn’t have to mention “racism” though. These guys are anything but racist. How many White Americans have they killed for Israel and how many non-Whites have they invited into the USA? That should be enough to know that they are anything but “racist”, unless you mean pro Jews. Which would be true.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  6. Good summary of the foreign policy “debate.” Although, this article doesn’t mention the worst part of the foreign policy “debate”: Jeb Bush gloating about how his brother “kept us safe.” The other candidates, expect for Rand Paul and Donald Trump (who brags about how he was always against the invasion of Iraq), went along with this nonsense (Chris Christie, of course, used personal stories of 9-11 to defend W.’s policies). I’m still amazed how just about everyone in the GOP refuses to admit that invading Iraq was one of the worst.foreign policy disasters in American history.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  7. no, it is ALL about Israel. The operative policy of the Demoncratrepubliscam one-party State is:

    Israel gets to have borders, while

    America does not get to have borders

    And why is this? Because the entire U.S. political class is bought-and-paid for by a Kabbalah of Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood Zionist-globalist Jew billionaires

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Joe Franklin
  8. AndrewR says:

    Is it still too early to say that Hitler may have been onto something? Throughout the West, Jewish interests are actively promoted and goyim interests are actively condemned. And the double digit IQ evangelical mouth breathers lap it up.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @rod1963
    , @Moi
  9. The FACE that will launch a thousand ships.

  10. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mounain"] says:

    I am a NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN PATRIOT….and I have o allegiance to the Jewish State of Israel.

    In the Daily Mail, Carly Fiorina’s first husband referred to Carly Fiorina as “a vicious sociopath with an MBA completely devoid of humanity”.

    The ex-wife of Carly Fiorina’s current Husband stated that she got the two daughters in the divorce settlement…and that Carly Fiorina had very little contact with them. She went on to say that Carly Fiorina uses her dead daughter as a campaign prop.

  11. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I tuned in out of curiosity and turned it off after a while feeling appalled. I could get more intellectual responses out of any random group of bar patrons. This is what’s being offered to the American people? Fiorina in particular came across as an ignorant crackpot. She’s going to crack the whip on Putin and other designated bad guys? Oh really? She and most of the others don’t seem to be grounded very well in reality. It was a very disheartening experience to see people who have held responsible positions be revealed as shallow and just downright stupid. This is our political leadership class? A country of 320 million can’t produce anything better than this?

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @AndrewR
    , @guest
  12. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Great Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    So what is the alternative to Carly Fiorina Corporatism-Israel worship?

    Here it is:Highly racialized..racially zenophobic-anti-interventionist-economically progressive…Native Born White Amerian Working Class Racial Patriotism….

    Abe Foxman…fat sweaty greedy cockroach….not our racial kind!!!!…..

  13. KA says:

    Wolfowitz is advisor of Bush 2 .
    Mitt Romney had the faces that basically spent 24/7 advocating for war against Iraq
    McCain had people intimately involved with various liberation( Middle East countries) acts , Geotgian war,and Iraq war.
    Graham doesn’t have to enumerate .He said his will be all neocons in post election cabinet if he won.
    If the media bothered ,they would have delved a bit. Had it exposed role of Wolfowitz all the way from 1979 in destabilizing Middle East ,had it( media) exposed the associations and networking of say Kagan or Perle ,or Kraithammer, then the public would have got an opportunity in challenging the GOP aspirants . Sometimes these inquiries open other door for more scrutiny likee the pardoning of the traitor- spy- convicts by the president . American could then learn that some of those convicts are actually back in the same business ,this time doing it openly or this time protecting another traitor . The last was exemplified by Rhode – Rosen -AIPAC affairs and Harman affair .

  14. To understand our world, read the Controversy of Zion , by Douglas Reed, from about chapter 40 onwards.

    Mr Reed was a prophet.

  15. Big Bill says:

    How sad and unmanned have we become as nation that we would listen to a lady candidate (for president!) talking tough.

    How silly … and how pathetic it makes the other (purportedly male) candidates appear.

    • Replies: @Realist
  16. There are three things I am looking for

    Stop illegal immigration

    Get control over spending, including the military

    Do not have an aggressive foreign policy

    Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul get two out of three. While Meatloaf sang that “two outa three ain’t bad,” he was being sarcastic.

  17. Mr. Anon says:

    “5. In 1975 Richard Nixon and Golda Meier reached a “clandestine agreement: Israel is allowed to be a nuclear power.””

    In 1975, Richard Nixon was no longer President of the United States and Golda Meir was no longer the Prime Minister of Israel.

    • Replies: @Sherman
    , @SolontoCroesus
  18. Marian says:

    We outsource our sovereignty to Israel long ago. It is a sorry statement when candidates running for lowly governorships must make the trek to Tel Aviv for a blessing. Can you imagine what the presidential ones must do? Hmm…could possibly explain Carly’s sour puss face.

  19. Jim says:

    The foreign policy of a huge continent spanning nation under enormous influence from a tiny country on the other side of the globe. I don’t think there’s ever been anything like it before in history.

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  20. Jim says:

    Talking of a war with Russia over the Baltic countries? Are we going to have a nuclear exchange with Russia over the independence of Lithuiania? But these people are so crazy that they might precipitate a nuclear war over South Ossetia, a place almost no America had ever heard until recently.

  21. Sherman says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Don’t confuse this psycho poster with the facts. He’s already made up his mind.

  22. Realist says:

    The Republican and Democratic candidates are the best money can buy. And that is one reason democracy doesn’t work….at least for the masses.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  23. Realist says:

    “The stupid, the corrupt and the bellicose. No wonder that, among this bunch, Trump is definitely starting to look like a gentleman and an intellectual of virtue.”

    And that is really sad.

  24. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    She’s just a whore of the Jewish-Homo or Jomo Complex.

    • Replies: @Rifleman
  25. @Mr. Anon

    My mistake.
    Should have written 1969.

    The information is from a video-documentary —

    At 40.10 Narrator says “Two years later Golda Meier and US President Richard Nixon reach a clandestine agreement …”
    Video shows Meier, Nixon, Kissinger and one other person in White House (presumably), yucking it up.

    My mistake was to add “2 years” to the wrong war:
    The narration immediately preceding this segment spoke of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty — 1967.

    btw, in the video, Sunday Times (London) chief investigative reporter Peter Hounen says that USA had loaded nuclear missiles on USAF planes and deployed them to attack Egypt in the 1967 war. The mission was called aborted. Hounen implies that his sources were persons who knew about loading the planes. An Israeli denies the charge stating “there is no documentary evidence to prove ….”

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  26. Realist says:

    “This is what’s being offered to the American people?”

    But people stupid enough to vote will pick one….as always.

  27. Realist says:

    “And the double digit IQ evangelical mouth breathers lap it up.”

    Yes, indeed.

  28. Realist says:
    @Big Bill

    There are two ‘tough’ women running don’t forget….Graham.

    • Replies: @schmenz
  29. Sam Shama says:

    On those occasions when compulsory viewing popular television with gathered “friends”, without the option of exit or sanctuary in Glenfiddich is available, I mentally beckon a Monty Python conversion of the proceedings. There was sufficient material there, for a full re-editioning of the “Holy Grail”, with the suitable addition of a female member, quite outdoing the male Knights who said “Ni!” .

    His Corpulence, the King was not in view, (nor his voice heard, mercifully) but his pocketbook – or rather more precisely motzer – was felt by all creatures great and small, most of all by the knights, Sir Huck, Lance, Robin and Lady Carly, falling over each other to be the first to pledge the valiant flight of Air Force One to destinations of great peril, landing in victory finally, at the new Camelot called Tel Aviv.

    One could carry on (and I would), if it were not for the sheer distortion of democracy unfolding each day in full view.

    This is why, Dr. Giraldi, I feel that most Americans (including Jewish ones, I might add, with fair conviction garnered from noticing the open-mouthed disbelief of a 80-year old, particularly unbending Zionist, watching the farce) will reject this drama. A powerful POTUS with an independent mind will be chosen.

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
  30. @Sam Shama

    Thanks Sam…who would you propose?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  31. Sam Shama says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    Well Donald Trump could very much be that person, yet I am not sure of his seriousness (one does need to show a bit of preparation for debates etc.). On the whole, despite disappointments, I think people should stand behind Rand.

    Curious to know your choice, as well those of others’, commenting here. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    , @RobinG
  32. @Sam Shama

    I like Kasich for the GOP and Jim Webb on the Dem side, though both are far from good on many key issues and are probably un-nominatable. I don’t understand Rand at all and have major reservations about Trump though I like his disdain for Washington politicians. Last time around I would have of course loved to see Ron Paul as GOP candidate and I also liked Huntsman.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @Art
    , @Avery
  33. AndrewR says:

    Once one realizes that the POTUS is merely a puppet with only a marginal amount of meaningful autonomy, the pathetic state of our political system makes more sense.

    Certainly the number of Americans who are more intelligent, more knowledgeable, more reasonable and more diplomatic than any of the candidates we have running is probably well over 100,000. But our presidents are not allowed to be anything other than enthusiastic cheerleaders for the powers that be. In this way Trump’s popularity is remarkable. While he is controlled opposition (look at how he responded to David Duke’s endorsement of him) and astoundingly narcissistic, he has moved the Overton window well to the right and for that we owe him endless gratitude.

  34. LondonBob says:

    Roger Stone is/was advising Donald Trump. Stone is not a fan of LBJ and is well versed in the USS Liberty incident.

    Trump and Paul sounded the only sane ones, Trump is so far ahead anyway it looks a done deal.

    • Replies: @bunga
  35. AndrewR says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    Isn’t Kasich basically Huntsman 2.0? I’ve never studied either of them in depth but I would be surprised to learn there were significant differences between them.

  36. geokat62 says:

    Last time Sam made his appeal for a strong POTUS, I challenged him to respond to the following comment I made:

    Further to my previous comment, as was made abundantly clear during Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, there is little chance the gatekeepers would permit a strong candidate to become either party’s presidential candidate, let alone POTUS.

    Here was Sam’s response:

    Ron Paul – although I thought his economic ideas were somewhat wrong-headed (not a deal killer of course), was far too open and revealing of his overall objective. Trump on the other hand is playing his cards much closer to his chest. He will, if he makes a real go of it, compromise and weave his objectives around without giving away the farm. I really believe that there is practically a zero probability of near-future war with Iran (the Lobby rank and file are anything but convinced of this and will tell you so behind closed doors). What I care for most really, is that Trump sounds quite resolute in putting large investments in Infrastructure, Education and training in the USA, a policy long due on these shores.

    Not sure how others feel, but I don’t think Trump is a closet non-interventionist, regardless of how close he keeps his cards to his chest.

    As far as my choice of candidates, given my strong belief that the gatekeepers will prevent a strong candidate from winning the nomination, I think the electoral process is fundamentally broken and has been for several cycles now and that participating in this charade is a waste of time. As a result, drastic changes are required if the political process is to function properly – i.e., express the will of ordinary people and not that of elites.

  37. RobinG says:
    @Sam Shama

    OT – from another post, This looks like latest iteration of Glass-Steagall

    S.1709 – 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2015

    As for your choices, I know there’s dreck to work with, but yuck. I expect everyone here will jump on me, but I’m pulling for O’Malley. It’s still a long game.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  38. bunga says:

    Intimidating from abroad,from home from every perch


    “It is always difficult to explain to friends who picture themselves standing to my left why I cringe at words like the ones Jeremy Corbyn employed in his victory statement the other day.

    Corbyn said: “Let us be a force for change in the world, a force for humanity in the world, a force for peace in the world, and a force that recognizes we cannot go on like this, with grotesque levels of global inequality, grotesque threats to our environment all around the world,” and so forth, on behalf of the safety of refugees and the well being of the poor.

    I am in favor of every one of those points, and I think it is disgusting when I hear anybody sneer at any of them. And yet, when certain kinds of people invoke language of this sort, I hear a different speech entirely,”

  39. Sam Shama says:

    On the economic angle I like Trump a great deal, but unfortunately he seems to think that he can get away with all press interactions with his home-made brand of domestic and foreign policy. Unless he shows better preparation, it appears that he is really not serious.

    Well Ron Paul is not running this time, so while many of his economic ideas I did disagree with, on a larger reckoning he is an absolutely honest person.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression of the need for an electoral college, at least to a meaningful extent, was to winnow out the bad candidates (for the greater good) and to make available to the hoi polloi a set of acceptable choices. (I don’t mean to sound spiffy, high and mighty at all, but if I do, it is increasingly the result of watching the easy manipulation of Joe6P in this country). So your contention, which is basically that the delegates and super delegates have been corrupted, is indeed valid, and perhaps what led me to detect a peek into Rand’s motivation (and indeed his voting actions) as being the actions of a rational man, declining to sacrifice the greater pledge in favour of certain much smaller expediencies.

    Rand is clearly a non-interventionist, Trump too I feel, for he is not invested in any business associated with war profits as far as I can see, and the man likes his green-backs!

  40. Sam Shama says:

    Thanks Robin for sharing this. Shall read.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  41. RobinG says:

    Geo., you are right of course. But since “…the will of ordinary people …” is so corrupted by the MSM, democracy with this uninformed (disinformed) electorate is even more frightening than what we have.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  42. One might observe that if ending international bullying were even vaguely his objective he would start with Washington, which has been abusing the rest of the world since 9/11

    The international bullying went into overdrive post 9/11 perhaps but ‘abusing the rest of the world’ goes back at least to the time of General Smedley Butler’s time of service and the US military protecting the interests of Standard Oil Co. That’s pre-WW I.

    After, high gear was shifted into with the National Security Act of 1947 and the creation of what amounts to a ‘national security shadow government’

    The book was The English Constitution, an analysis by 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot that laid bare the dual nature of British governance. It suggested that one part of government was for popular consumption, and another more hidden part was for real, consumed with getting things done in the world. As he read, Glennon, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School, where he also teaches constitutional law, saw distinct parallels with the current American political scene.

    He decided to explore the similarities in a 30-page paper that he sent around to a number of his friends, asking them to validate or refute his argument. As it happens, Glennon’s friends were an extraordinarily well-informed bunch, mostly seasoned operatives in the CIA, the U.S. State Department and the military. “Look,” he told them. “I’m thinking of writing a book. Tell me if this is wrong.” Every single one responded, “What you have here is exactly right”

    My two bits on the subject can be found at:


    ^ ‘Democracy’ is a joke. Our republic is so absolutely compromised, I don’t understand how it is Phil can even give the so-called elections the validity he does. There is nothing ‘of, for and by the people’ in the entirety of the poisonous cocktail.

    Insofar as Hillary as ‘the unfortunate alternative’ she’s no different to the rest of the bunch when you draw back the curtain:


  43. chris says:

    Thanks for another great article, Phil

    If anything Carly is even scarier on the inside than the outside. Never mind Obama’s birth certificate, I want to see hers to verify for myself that she really was born as a woman.

    And if 9 of the bunch are ready to start bombing (anybody) immediately upon ascent to the office, the other 2, I think are just lying because they’re lagging behind in the poles.

    It’s a little reminiscent of Hunter Thompson’s quote about America being “… a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.”

    But even at his most cynical self, Hunter could never have dreamed of this bunch of lunatics, and their audience of supporters

  44. tbraton says:

    “Finally, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who was clearly out of his depth even though the discussion was not exactly cerebral. . . .”

    PG, I see you have become a master of understatement.

    I really liked your takedown of Marco Rubio flying around in Air Force 1 before his inauguration. And, to think, he has been blessed by the MSM as “a foreign policy expert.” Yikes. He was spouting the same neoconnish BS when he ran for the Senate in 2010, and that was why I voted against him. Unfortunately I was outnumbered.

  45. geokat62 says:

    Agreed, this aspect of the process needs to be addressed as well. As Sam has rightly pointed out, trying to regulate ownership of mass media is problematic. Given that transparency is the lifeblood of a democratic system, perhaps a requirement to disclose who the owners of a particular publication, news channel, radio station, etc should be made mandatory. The objective would be to help the people determine “who’s who in the zoo,” as Cynthia Mckinney once put it. McKinney, you’ll recall, was a former member of the House of Representative before the Lobby claimed her scalp for daring to defy them.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  46. schmenz says:

    That’s hilarious, Realist! Thanks for the chuckle.

  47. Rifleman says:
    @Priss Factor

    Jews and gays jews and gays………give it a rest you sissy.

    Stop blaming a world Jewish conspiracy for your own homosexuality. And stop hating them for teaching you to hate your self as a gay male.

  48. bunga says:

    “Some of these advisers are White House officials, some are members of the Jewish agency, some occupy a “gray area” in between, it hardly matters. Ben Cohen was both advising the Jewish Agency and serving as an American representative to the UN; Robert Nathan was an economist in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations and also working for Chaim Weizmann in Palestine; Max Lowenthal was “a proverbial backroom operator… a fixture at the White House, even though he had no formal position and did not have an office.” Part of Louis Brandeis’s circle of Zionists, Lowenthal drafted memos that went directly to Truman. One said that opposing partition would put the United States “in the ridiculous role of trembling before the threats of a few nomadic tribes.”

    – See more at:
    Intimidation was the quite routine and effective back then also

    • Replies: @KA
  49. bunga says:

    The letter from LBGT

    “The first letter was written by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson to John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower’s secretary of state, in February 1957 after the Suez crisis. LBJ was then the Democratic leader in the Senate. The letter is a stern admonition to Dulles that he should not pressure Israel to withdraw from Gaza and lands in the Sinai near the Gulf of Aqaba, lands it had occupied in the ’56 war, which it had initiated, along with England and France.

    “I feel I should tell you, most frankly, how disturbed I have been by recent stories in the press, which stories have appeared under the bylines of most reputable correspondents, that serious consideration is being given in the General Assembly of the United Nations to imposing economic sanctions against the State of Israel.” These sanctions would be “unwise” and unfair. One has to look at the “root causes” of the trouble in the Middle East, Johnson said, and one of these causes is that when Israel withdraws from these lands it will have no guarantee of security from Egyptian attacks. “[T]he merits, the justice, and the morality in this situation are clear,” Johnson wrote.

    The second letter is the stunner. It was penned a week later, from New York, by the president of the American Jewish Committee. “I realize that your letter to the Secretary of State on February 11, is off the record and not subject to any public treatment,” said Irving Engel. But the Senator had passed on a copy to Engel, in confidence, through a Jewish lawyer. Engel went on:

    With this letter you have, to my feeling, truly lived up to the meaning of the Ecclesiastes’ word: “There is a time to keep silent, a time to speak.” You have, Senator, spoken the frank and creative words of a statesman, a guardian of the moral principles of America, and a defender of the true interests of this country. On behalf of the American Jewish Committee… I wish to give you thanks for a momentous act of wisdom and courage.

    I’m not historian enough to judge the Suez question. Israel did
    withdraw from those territories, and Egypt’s subsequent militarization of the border
    led (probably along with Israel’s getting the bomb from France) to the ’67 war. But it never ends. Today the rationale is offered, as it was 50 years
    ago, that Israel cannot withdraw from the West Bank because it would be
    vulnerable to attack if it did so.

    What the two letters offer is an echo of what Abba Eban said in an essay I mentioned the other day: the crucial importance to Israel of American Jewish “pressure and influence” on U.S. policymakers back in the 50s and 60s. Why was the Jewish community so important to a senator from Texas? Johnson had been put forward as a presidential candidate in ’56, he would run again in ’60. Johnson was a political animal; and his blunt letter to Dulles seems a transparent effort to cultivate support from Jews. He kept the letter private while making sure it got to big Jews in New York. It is important to remember that Dulles was widely despised in the Jewish community; he had backed Hitler through the early 30s. A “bastard,” I remember hearing in my childhood.

    A cursory search of Johnson biographies suggests that no one has written about this episode. As Engel said, there’s a time to be silent and a time to speak. Isn’t it time to speak of this neverending element in our politics?
    – See more at:

  50. Art says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    I like those four also – Trump – Webb – Kasich – Paul — in that order. I think that they are all America fisters.

    America is going down – we already are. Rome did not fall straight down – it had some quality emperors along the way. America started dying with the murder of Kennedy. Reagan was an up tic. One of these four could be an up tic for America.

    I see Trump as a man with a good gut feeling for the way things actually are. He is a moderate at heart – he does not hate the poor or the rich. He is not an ideologue – he is an experienced proven individual that can get things done – he can make a deal between competing interests. As to the disgusting dirty issue of Jew control of our government, Trump has thrived and survived in the Jewish controlled NYC real-estate market. Jew demands on America’s body politic will not go away – but I think that Trump has the fortitude and skill to stand up to it. He is already doing so with his immigration stand and his stated desire to work with Putin.

    Webb – is also 100% American – he has served in Vietnam, been the civilian head of the Navy, been a US senator, and has actually personally written books. He is another moderate with good instincts. And he is not an Washington insider – he voluntarily gave up his senate seat.

    Even though he is a lifelong politician – Kasich is someone I trust. He is a proven moderate that gets things done. I think that America would get an up tic with him as leader.

    Of them all, Paul has the right ideas – but he does not have the political skills to get them across. Currently there is ZERO chance that Paul would get to be president – the Jews will murder him one way or another before that happens. I think that in 8 years things may change when Paul becomes a more seasoned politician.

  51. guest says:

    I guess the reason Rubio rambled on about flying around the world is because they were all standing in front of a plane. He was playing “say what you see” with himself.

  52. rod1963 says:

    What you think a bunch of evangelicals decide foreign policy or the voters in general? Dude it hasn’t been that way ever. Foreign policy has always been dictated by powerful political, banking and industrial interests.

    The people at best only serve to rubber stamp decisions after the fact. Nothing more.

    Evangelicals do however serve as useful dupes in distracting angry Leftists from the real decision makers.

    Puppets like Carly or Jeb are told what to say by their mega-donors, they are the ones who define their policies, etc. Not them. What do you think campaign contributions are, they’re bribes and make the candidate do as they say.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  53. guest says:

    As a silver lining, even if one of them wins they won’t be running much. Ever notice how little changes from president to president, despite how differently they were advertised to us beforehand?

  54. KA says:

    The pattern is not new,nothing surprising here.

  55. Macilrae says:

    What we are seeing isn’t surprising. The ruling class of the United States, long jealous of its role as “world leader”, sees its economic power inevitably slipping away and so, to maintain this position, it must increasingly fall back on military threats. Don’t imagine, either, that the exposure to foreign creditors like China will cause the US leadership to moderate such behavior – once a certain point is reached it will thumb its nose at them. A return to imperialism is also conceivable – with seizure of resources and territory from other countries.

    It seems to me that we are witnessing the start of a colossal arms-race between the US and a consortium headed by Russia and China: hearing the minatory sentiments that these candidates and presumed leaders(Republican but also Democrat) are spewing forth, they have little alternative.

  56. Avery says:
    @Philip Giraldi

    Sen Rand Paul is no Rep Ron Paul.

    The fact that Sen Paul was against the peace deal with Iran is proof enough he has been bought and paid for by anti-American, anti-Christian Neocon filth.
    Sen Paul went to Israel on some kind of a pilgrimage.
    After that trip, he was a “changed man”.

    Any American who is against the peace deal with Iran is beholden to foreign interests.

    All the other clowns are groveling, because they need money like oxygen.
    Trump does not need ‘campaign contributions’ from special interests: for that alone, he is a better candidate.
    The other sycophants groveling and licking the shoes of foreign interests are not qualified to be the President of United States.
    President Dwight David “Ike” Eisenhower told Israel, and England, and France to get during the Suez Crises – or else.
    The little wannabees scattered.
    That was an _American_ president.
    All the rest are foreign agents.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  57. The media in the USA and overseas always go on about Trump as some kind of comic unelectable figure but in reality all the POTUS candidates with maybe the exception of Sanders would be considered dangerous unelectable extremists in any civilised country. From the outside here in Uncle Sams Pacific sherrif Australia I think it must be like the citizens of the ancient world watching the debates in the Roman Imperium.

    If you elect any of these fruitcakes, you cannot be considered a civilised nation.

  58. Absolutely appalling. A complete moral collapse, ending in warmongering. Don’t think a polity subservient to gangster oligarchs who aspire to rule the entire world by violence, will respect its own people either – hence growing unaccountable police state surveillance and civilian police transformed into thinly disguised occupation style militias.

  59. @Avery

    The fact that Sen Paul was against the peace deal with Iran is proof enough he has been bought and paid for by anti-American, anti-Christian Neocon filth.
    . . .
    Any American who is against the peace deal with Iran is beholden to foreign interests.

    What makes you think the JCPOA is a “peace deal with Iran?”

    It’s not.

    It’s Shock and Awe by other means.

    The Economic Hitman has all kinds of tricks up his sleeve.

    One way or another the Anglo zionists intend to force an Iranian capitulation.

    The “peace deal” gives the “anti-Christian Neocon filth” that is “beholden to foreign interests” the ability to remove one crucial layer of Iran’s ability to defend itself and gives access to Iran’s most carefully guarded military secrets, the more easily to attack Iran and destroy it just like “anti-Christian Neocon filth” destroyed the heart of Christian central Europe in WWII.

    • Replies: @Avery
  60. KA says:

    Also, remember that Irving Kristol wrote that he left the Democratic Party in 1973 for the following reason: –

    “Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States… American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

    – See more at:

    The warmongering by the GOP has its origin in the basic instinct of the Ziocon . They tried to get Scooper Jackson Boeing dethrone the peaceniks from the Democrats . Failing to capture the presidency they gravitated to Reagan.

    Today GOP has become 100% of what the progenitor of the ” bomber boy” dreamt of in 1973 .Democrats don’t want to lose the coveted position for the advocacy of American greatness. It has followed suit . Neither Hilary nor Sander have the bones in the spine to challenge the false choices offered to Americans.

    Fear mongering at home and waging war abroad have secured the essence of the both parties . War and terror are now bipartisan issues. Intimidation does work . Candidates are intimidated of the payback if they didn’t intimidate Iran,Syria,Russia,China,and Islamic terror cells in the west in the same tele prompted message.

  61. @Marian

    When Carly is elected, she will blow Bibi on inauguration day.

    • Replies: @Moi
  62. Avery says:

    You may be right about the Iran deal.

    However, I take my cue from Iranians themsleves.
    Iranians/Persians are an ancient civilization.
    Been around.
    They are masters at geopolitics going back centuries

    Neocons think they are clever: they are evil, but they are stupid.

    Don’t know what all the details of the deal are, but Iranians were ecstatic sanctions will be lifted. I am pretty sure Iranians themselves know better than us what’s best for them.

    {One way or another the Anglo zionists intend to force an Iranian capitulation.}

    They can intend, but they can’t.
    Iran lived with Western sanctions for years and forced them to the negotiating table.
    Iran fought an 8 year war against invader Iraq, the latter 100% supported by US, UK and the Neocon scum.
    Iran fought the combined forces of the Evil Empire to a standstill.
    Iranian youth volunteered by the 1000s to clear paths in minefields with their lives.
    That is the kind of people Israel will face, if it decides to attack Iran.
    Other than a nuclear strike on Iran, which may result in Israel itself being wiped out, there is no way Anglo Zionists can force an Iranian capitulation.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  63. @Realist

    “The Republican and Democratic candidates are the best money can buy. And that is one reason democracy doesn’t work . . . at least for the masses.”

    All politicians are bought-and-paid-for. Every political hack–from The Pantsuited One right on down to your local alderman–is owned by every special interest with a checkbook. Joe Sixpack is powerless.

  64. @Avery

    Thanks for the response, Avery.

    That’s what friends keep saying — the Iranians will outsmart the neocons.

    I know Iranians are smarter, and kinder, too.
    Jews have lived with Iranians and in Iran longer and more happily than anyplace else on earth. It’s fair and accurate to say that Persia created Jews. Iranians know the difference between Jews and zionists.

    But zionists are vicious and so is USA.
    Just as Charles Lindbergh said, Jews, FDR and Churchill collaborated to destroy Germany in WWII. It was Germans who were holocausted in that epochal event, not Jews.

    When Netanyahu says, “Iran is Germany and it’s 1938,” he should be taken at his word: in 1938 a Jew assassinated a German diplomat in order to provoke a war — one that the German people and NSDAP did not want and to which the American people had not yet acquiesced.
    The eruption called Kristallnacht turned the tide of public opinion in USA and greased the skids toward war.
    No neocon, no zionist, very few Jewish people and no American legislators or candidates can be trusted not to attempt to repeat the same process.
    After all, USA emerged from WWII a superpower and Jews got a state out of the suffering of the German (and Russian and Palestinian) people. Why not try it again for another 70 years of American and Jewish prosperity at the expense of a proud and industrious people?

    Prof. Nasser Hadian talked about the Iran deal here.
    Hadian said he would have negotiated it differently; that Iran gave away too many things in one transaction, placing Iran in a position of trusting that the USA/P5/IAEA will keep their words. Hadian ticked off the metrics he used to analyze the deal; assessed that it was unfavorable to Iran on almost all counts; but that he agreed with the deal anyway because it creates the opportunity for a better relationship with the west.

    I fear he is too optimistic and too trusting.

    The IAEA has already betrayed its confidential relationship with Iran, and the USA has already built a full-scale mock-up of an Iranian nuclear facility, just as USA built full-scale mock-ups of German workers housing, where the US Air Force practiced creating firestorms to kill the maximum number of people.

    The only optimistic note I see is that Russia is in a far different position today than in 1938. Putin is not Stalin.
    Obama is not as cold-blooded as FDR but he is spineless and will not, or cannot, stand against his zio-con masters. I suspect the threat held over Obama is that Israel firsters will tank the US economy if Israel is crossed.

  65. JohnDough says:

    Another great article by Mr. Giraldi. These candidates would do well to read his articles but I think it would be way above their heads. From the way they speak it seems like they get their worldviews from TV like Fox and CNN. Their other fantasy based policies seem like scripts from tacky Hollywood action movies. Fiorina’s foreign policy thoughts sound like the talk one would hear at a high school. It’s a very frightening bunch that helps make Trump, the sharpest knife in this drawer stand tall with the many who feel they have a voice.

  66. RobinG says:
    @Sam Shama

    Miko Peled’s book must be shared – from Naomi Wolf’s FB

    Naomi Wolf

    4 hrs · Edited ·
    How very very strange and beautiful the universe is. It has its own ideas of what our lessons are to be. So many of you have asked me to read Miko Peled’s The General’s Son, about the now-peace activist Israeli son of a celebrated Israeli war hero, Matti Peled, who also by his later years had turned away from militarism and embraced peace; indeed, taught Arabic at an Israeli university. I deferred and deferred, resisted and resisted. Did not want to be forced the next stage of the path.
    So I was hanging out with a friend — someone who is neither Palestinian nor Jewish nor has any connection with or particular interest in the issue — who was on a plane randomly seated next to a Palestinian academic. They got to talking about Israel/Palestine and sure enough, the academic sent my friend a box of books. Including The General’s Son. The fact that this Palestinian intellectual was so eager to tell the hidden story, that he was sending books to a stranger met on a plane — was poignant enough.
    Well, I had nothing to read for the train trip back and my friend chose — that one — to give me. So…I started to read it. And there is all the painful stuff I had wanted to avoid. Peled is almost the same age as I am. He grew up in Jerusalem at the same time, his grandmothers living in the same neighborhood, Rehavia. I recognize the cold interiors during the winter in those days when Jerusalem apartments were heated with kerosene; all the neighborhoods and landmarks. And that generation of elderly people, those who remembered the War of Independence (or the Nakba, depending on whom you are), those who joined the Zionist project when they were young European idealists.
    And the history he peels back confirms painfully what we have learned here. His grandparents recall the 1920s in Palestine, when Jews and Arabs lived as neighbors, mostly peacefully. He recalls a time when the Zionist project was not militarized or nationalistic but could have been directed to growing basically a commune or community with a subculture, in the midst of and obeying the laws of a community of many subcultures in one nation. Matti Peled’s passport when he went to London to study law read, Palestine, and his nationality was listed as Palestinian,
    I had to stop reading because I got to the description of the Katamon neighborhood — formerly a Palestinian Arab neighborhood, taken over in 1948. I hung out with friends in Katamon as a teenager, I remember the big solid pepper trees, which I have described here, the beautiful old Arab houses interspersed with newer Israeli apartment buildings. Katamon. Peled talks about his mother refusing to take one of the house s — a quote I have mentioned before. “How can I take another woman’s house?”
    I didn’t want to read this because I knew it would be painful. I have been in those houses and I don’t want to think about the people who were there; whose property has yielded with no acknowledgement, no transition of mourning or recognition; to places where teenagers had parties and were not raised to ask questions about where they really were.
    But the universe had other ideas than my own will had, about what I should be reading or not reading, so here I am facing this book this sacred evening.
    I was asked on this page if I believed in God. I certainly believe in an intelligent loving power in the universe that transcends laws I understand, and this is kind of why — all these examples in our lives of the same lesson rising up in our faces whether we want it or not, until we have dealt with it. And the means presenting themselves to us to make us learn the material, weirdly arrived at or not.
    Ideology wants the people to be ghosts before they are ghosts.
    It seems to me this Yom Kippur evening that all real civilization is, is the continual whisper in our ears: wake up wake up wake up

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Sam Shama
  67. geokat62 says:

    So many of you have asked me to read Miko Peled’s The General’s Son, about the now-peace activist Israeli son of a celebrated Israeli war hero, Matti Peled, who also by his later years had turned away from militarism and embraced peace…

    Here’s a video promoting the book. It is worth viewing:

  68. B.S. Buster says: • Website

    As Mr. Giraldi and previous commentators appear to be, I too am disappointed in the state of American leadership. In political discussions, the default tone is usually antagonistic and haughty, as though everyone else is missing something. And they are. Including all of you.

    In this discussion, the crucial missing element is the contextual backdrop of Islamism, a pre-modern ideology that now finds itself with modern destructive means thanks to the achievements of its enemy, western civilization. To be clear, Islamism is the belief that all people must live under Sharia law. This is the motive force behind jihad and dawa (Islamist missionary strategy to change nations from within.) Not all Muslims are Islamists, of course, but enough are to present real and present danger to all who disagree with them. In confronting this threat, which is not new, the west has been in many ways its own worst enemy.

    But make no mistake, the threat is growing. It is not going to go away in response to continued American withdrawal from middle eastern affairs. They are not driven by economic interests in the same way that the western mind thinks about these things. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in his admonition that “America’s chickens have come home to roost” in response to the 9/11 attacks, got it wrong. So have our political leaders ever since.

    We fail to understand because we lack moral clarity and understanding of human nature. We want to believe, as W said (and I paraphrase), that Iraqis want freedom like all human beings want freedom. Maybe some of them did. But their ideas about what that means are very different from, and incompatible with, the American viewpoint. We want to believe that people are basically reasonable. The truth is that people have the capacity to be reasonable, but they are basically emotional.

    Islamist aggression will not stop on its own. It must be defeated. As previous commentators correctly point out, our past and current (as well as probable future policies as indicated in the GOP debate) are not viable. We send soldiers into areas where they cannot distinguish their enemy from civilians, and then prevent them from defending themselves in order to avoid the embarrassment of harming innocents. We believe the continual stream of lies that Islamists and their knowing and unknowing allies sell.

    Peace with Iran? It is not possible with Iran’s current leadership. As soon as they can, they will strike. The same is true with Sunni-run governments.

    I don’t claim to know the answers. Dr. Carson mentioned a reasonable course of action in the GOP debate – aggressively pursue our own energy sources so as to squeeze the flow of wealth to innately hostile regimes. That’s a step in the right direction.

    But it isn’t enough by itself. Islamist success is based upon its ability to instill fear in its enemies. That’s why the beheading videos, the sex slavery, etc. To defeat them, we must defeat our fears. We must aid Muslims in the region who disagree with Islamists (ISIL, Hamas, Boko Haram, Hamas, Al Queda, etc.) and bolster them in their struggles.

    Allowing Iran to march towards the ability to deliver nuclear strikes is suicidal – not just for the state of Israel, but for a technologically advanced way of life anywhere. Westerners often don’t appreciate the fact that Shia and Sunni Islamists hate each other about as much as they want to see all other religions and nations destroyed. Throw nuclear weapons into this hot mess, and there is zero chance that they won’t be used. There’s also zero chance that the conflict wouldn’t spread.

  69. geokat62 says:
    @B.S. Buster

    As Mr. Giraldi and previous commentators appear to be, I too am disappointed in the state of American leadership. In political discussions, the default tone is usually antagonistic and haughty, as though everyone else is missing something. And they are. Including all of you.

    I must admit, my interest was piqued by this very provocative introduction. But, alas, my disappointment was sealed when the “crucial missing element” was revealed:

    In this discussion, the crucial missing element is the contextual backdrop of Islamism,…

    Needless to say, I stopped reading from that point on.

    • Replies: @B.S. Buster
  70. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Sneaky sneaky.

    Ziocon Supremacist Michael Auslin tries to pass off his Judeo-centrism as ‘realism’.

  71. Sam Shama says:

    Well thank you once again (and Geokat down the thread for the video). I know intimately those neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, the ones my grandparents ruminated about as well, and a great grand-uncle (whom I never met) who had had the same dreams of co-existing communities, for which Chaim Arlozoroff (his friend), was assassinated.
    Yesterday, Erev Yom Kippur, was the perfect time to have asked forgiveness from fellow men (importantly, Palestinians) for all the wrongs visited on them, prior to G’d forgiving us the sins committed against his commandments.

    In a modern sense, this imho amounts to setting up a financial vehicle for the benefit of those uprooted, the least of concrete actions that can be undertaken.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  72. @B.S. Buster

    B.S. Buster – You cover a lot of ground and I will not attempt to respond to all your points. I suspect you do not know many American Muslims or many Muslims at all. The American version is on a whole well educated by Western standards, law abiding and economically successful. If you are arguing that their cultural orientation being raised Muslim is “different” I would agree with you but most of them are fine people and good neighbors. I would say the same for the many Muslims I have known overseas in places like Turkey. Good people with a strong sense of community and excellent values. You are basically taking a template of radical Islam and assuming that the shoe fits all Muslims, which it does not.

    You claim that Muslims want to introduce Sharia everywhere. Not true. There are only two countries in the world that have Sharia as their criminal code – Saudi Arabia and Iran. The rest have codes based on British and French models, similar to what we have. Sharia is only common in family law in most Muslim countries where it deals with issues like divorce and child custody, social issues linked to one’s religiosity.

    You cite “Islamist aggression” even though the past hundred years have exhibited a phenomenon that is quite the reverse with the West dismembering and looting Islamic states to suit its own economic and political interests. Iran, which you pillory, has not attacked another country since the seventeenth century. CIA and Mossad both agree that it has no nuclear weapons program but you seem to disagree. Evidence? Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for many years and has never used them. Only we have done that. There is no evidence whatsoever that Muslims want “to see all other religions and nations destroyed.” That is a fantasy concocted by the usual neocon suspects. The only nation willing to destroy the world while seeking its own survival is Israel with its Samson Option.

    Energy independence is fine for countries that have energy resources. Those who do not, the majority, will continue to buy from the energy producers in the Middle East. Dr. Carson’s idea to starve the terrorist of funds is a non-starter on that basis alone. He is a neurosurgeon and has been poorly advised on foreign policy.

  73. B.S. Buster says: • Website
    @Philip Giraldi

    Thank you for your thoughtful response.

    In your opening assessment, I’m afraid you fall into a common trap – to question the person making an assertion that doesn’t fit into your current view instead of looking at the assertion itself. This stops many people dead in their tracks to gaining greater understanding.

    I meant precisely what you assert regarding Muslims in general when I distinguished Islamism from being Muslim. From that point forward, I was not speaking about “westernized” Muslims.

    You seem to give Islamists a pass on their transgressions, citing neocon assertions. The intentions behind terrorist action comes straight from their mouths, not Bill Kristol’s. Primary sources for this are too numerous to quote. Look at the speech of any of the leaders of aggressive groups, and you’ll have clear statements of their intentions and motivations. The “fantasy” you mention comes from the Koran and is asserted by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran’s current current constitution:

    In the formation and equipping of the country’s defense forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them.” (8:60))

    So here’s my question: how do you explain the actions of Major Nadal, the attack on Charlie Hebdo, the actions of Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson, the Tsarnaev brothers, and dozens of other terrorist actors in western countries? Do you believe these are misguided outliers and do not pose credible threats?

  74. @Philip Giraldi

    You claim that Muslims want to introduce Sharia everywhere. Not true. There are only two countries in the world that have Sharia as their criminal code – Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    I know nothing about practice of Sharia in Saudi Arabia, and know very little about its implementation in Iran.

    But what I do know about Sharia in Iran is this: In the Iranian system, the victim of a crime participates in its adjudication. He/she can choose to accept a price or some other form or recompense from the perpetrator, rather than suffer the punishment the law would impose. The practice is part of the legal process, and the judge in the Iranian system would ratify the resolution.

    For example, if the head of a family is killed, accidentally or deliberately (I don’t know if there are distinctions), upon adjudication of guilt (this is not vigilante justice) the survivors of the victim may reach the agreement that the perpetrator is required to support the children of the victim for a term of years, i.e. through their completion of college or the like. Or he/she may be required to continue the victim’s business, or farm, until the children are raised. Iranians consider such Sharia resolutions to be more practical than imprisonment.

    In a discussion of his book, Payback: The Case for Revenge, author Thane Rosenbaum observed that the Iranian system satisfies the innate and natural need of a victim for revenge more appropriately than does the western legal system.

    Sharia also constrains money-lending practices. Sharia finance is sophisticated; it’s different from Western finance. Reasonable people might be interested in learning about the system —

    Understanding Shari’a Finance: The Muslim Challenge to Western Economics by Patrick Sookhdeo


    Mastering Islamic Finance: A practical guide to Sharia-compliant banking, investment and insurance by Faizal Karbani.

    • Replies: @Macilrae
  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Pat Hannagan

    You have heard from the rest, now hear from the Best! From what you have posted, we need a Better candidate. See what I have to say at:

  76. tbraton says:
    @Sam Shama

    “and a great grand-uncle (whom I never met) who had had the same dreams of co-existing communities, for which Chaim Arlozoroff (his friend), was assassinated.”

    Well, don’t leave me and others in the dark who may not be familiar with Chaim Arlozoroff. “Assassinated” by which side?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  77. Macilrae says:

    ” … the victim of a crime participates in its adjudication. He/she can choose to accept a price or some other form or recompense from the perpetrator, rather than suffer the punishment the law would impose. The practice is part of the legal process, and the judge in the Iranian system would ratify the resolution. ”

    This is effectively merging criminal and civil law in the treatment of an obviously criminal case. An alternative approach to English law, sure, but with evident merits. Certainly ‘we’ can’t hold up our own system as exemplary – very far from it, indeed. I remember a Persian student in my class back in 1958 who explained that in his country, in cases of adultery, if the husband caught the couple ‘in the act’ and killed the man, then the law would deal with him very lightly indeed. I am unsure if this is still the case.

    I agree with Philip Giraldi that Muslims in the US are in general well-educated and law-abiding – the MSM seems to do its best to demonize them and has been extremely successful in doing so in both the USA and the UK (where there is probably even more prejudice against them). I notice mention here of Charlie Hebdo and I wonder how many people have taken a look at their back-issues which, were they targeted at any ethnic group other than Arabs and Persians, would be judged as obscenely racist. Any story that casts Muslims in a negative light is given great prominence and the reasons behind this strategy will be obvious to most readers here!

  78. Moi says:

    Time to establish a House Israeli Affairs Committe to pose the following: “Are you now or have you ever been an citizen of Israel? How much money have you donated for illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Have you ever worn the uniform of the IDF?”

    Flush ’em out!

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  79. B.S. Buster says: • Website

    Your response may illustrate the source of the gaps in your understanding.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  80. Moi says:
    @Semi-employed White Guy

    How do know that Bibi would not prefer that job going to Bernie?

  81. Sam Shama says:

    Easy enough to Google.
    More importantly, I suspect that you have a clear suspect.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  82. geokat62 says:
    @B.S. Buster

    I’d prefer to continue to live with gaps in my understanding than to fill it with the nonsense you provided above.

    • Replies: @B.S. Buster
  83. tbraton says:
    @Sam Shama

    “More importantly, I suspect that you have a clear suspect.”

    Actually, I have no suspect at all since I am totally unfamiliar with the person. Just curious, that’s all. But thanks for the help.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  84. @David Bruce

    Most Republicans and no neocons consider the Iraq invasion a mistake. After all, consider what they have accomplished. Trillions of dollars have been made from arms sales, plus the entire Middle East lies in ruins from which additional profits will be extracted at a later date. That is, unless Russia barges in and spoils the party.

  85. B.S. Buster says: • Website

    By your word you don’t know what I said. I respectfully suggest that it may be advantageous for you to be able to distinguish Islamism from Islam.

  86. @Jim

    It’s not Jews in a tiny country on the other side of the globe that’s causing the problem. It dual loyalist, 5th column Jews installed at virtually every level of US government.

  87. Sam Shama says:

    Well apologies on account of my presumptuous statement.

    Chaim Arlozoroff was among the leading members of the Jewish Agency, during the British Mandate and a key figure negotiating and conceptualising – one might indeed call it the character – of the proposed Jewish State. He was a Zionist in the sense I was brought up to understand: a philosophy still in making, but with a guiding set of principles for a people seeking sanctuary and hope in a land, very much inseparable from its biblical origins.

    Arlozoroff and Ben Gurion, leaders of the Mapai or Labour party – left-wing socialist zionists- were opposed by the Right wing revisionist party led by Vladimir Jabotinsky. The character of zionism was zealously and fractiously contested as one might imagine (a natural state of affairs when more than 3 jews are involved, folklore has it), with revisionists stubbornly claiming a position that refused to seriously consider the sentiments of the existing Palestinian Arab population. The revisionists were also aligned with the British regarding the sphere of influence, geography and proposed finances of the state under discussion, irreconcilably opposed to Arlozoroff’s negotiations with the Nazi government regarding the disposition and transfer of Jewish Germans and their properties.

    Fast forward to 1930, the year when Chaim decided to be more than usually assertive in advancing his notion that a state which did not include the input of major Arab nations in the neighbourhood, as well the inclusion in kibbutzim and other social organisations, those Arabs (“All children of Abraham”) so inclined, would be doomed to social chaos, if not a complete unraveling. This was a non-starter for Jabotinsky’s lot. Chaim lamented to his friends, during this period, that he should have never lent a hand of support (which included financial help from his German Jewish connections), to the blind revisionists.

    June 16th 1933: during an after dinner walk with his wife on Namal Tel Aviv (the beachfront), he was accosted by two men, one of whom shot him in the chest. He died on the early hour of the next morning in Tel Aviv hospital.

    There were quite a few suspects including a convicted Arab murderer (who confessed and then recanted), as well as characters from the Revisionist Party. Mapai itself was blamed for getting rid of a man whose views were clashing with those of an ascendant Jabotinsky and his increasingly suppliant (as seen by some) collaborator, Ben Gurion.

    I believe it was Stavsky (a member of Jabotinsky’s party) and/ Abba Achimeir, a disillusioned member of Arlozoroff’s original party, the Party of Youth (Hapoel Hatsair). They had the motivation and support needed to get away with it.

    This was as you might estimate, a rather hurried and compressed narrative, one that surely leaves great gaping crevices (can a narrative, compressed or otherwise, have gaping crevices, I ask ?), but it attempts to connect some dots that can provide context for a country, which since its creation, has threatened to rip asunder its own foundations.

  88. @Haxo Angmark

    Israel has a very similar immigration policy to the US.

    What you label open borders is actually preferential immigration for victim cult people.

    For example, the US has preferential immigration and citizenship for victim cult people such as Latinos, Asians, Queers, Jewish, Muslims, and Afro blacks.

    Israel too has preferential immigration and citizenship for victim cult people with its Law of Return.

    The Israeli Law of Return grants automatic immigration and citizenship to Jewish victim cultists, including reformed, conservative, and orthodox Jewish people.

    The American-Israeli victim cult is real.

  89. @geokat62

    The purpose of the electoral process is to make you think you have a choice. You don’t. The candidate (either party) that survives the process will do exactly what the Zionist mafia instructs them to do or, like JFK, suffer the consequences.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  90. Sam Shama says:

    Roger Cohen in the NYTimes this morning:

    [..]Those prophets’ word was present in the synagogue. Zealotry is not the answer to zealotry. Being a practical people who have learned through the ultimate trial that without power survival itself is at risk cannot mean Jewish acquiescence to the injustice of dominion over another displaced people, the Palestinians. The teachings of the “community of expulsion” demand ever-renewed commitment to inclusion, even when it seems hopeless. Justice and peace are incompatible with the status quo in the Holy Land.

    Perhaps such ideas are Jew-ish, the delusions of which “real Jews” in their absolutist certainties have rid themselves. But I will take the “as far as possible” of the Jewish philosopher over the all-or-nothing conviction of the Messianic Jewish settler.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  91. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Beautiful words, Sam. But where are the actions to back them up?

    As I’ve indicated before, the Jewish community needs to step up and:

    1. denounce the special relationship,
    2. seek an end to the occupation by supporting BDS,
    3. push for the registration of all foreign lobbies under FARA, and
    4. support ending all foreign aid to countries whose GDP per capita do not warrant it

    Historically, the Jewish community has invariably been at the vanguard of social justice movements. Unfortunately, when it comes to the I/P issue, many Jews have decided to become PEPs (progressive except for Palistine). This needs to change… and, for the community’s sake as well as that of the innocent people of the ME, soon.

  92. geokat62 says:
    @Carroll Price

    The candidate (either party) that survives the process will do exactly what the Zionist mafia instructs them to do or, like JFK, suffer the consequences.

    This is the thesis of Final Judgment: The Missing Link, by Michael Collins Piper. He claimed that the Israeli Mossad was responsible for the assassination of JFK.

    Here’s a link to the book:

  93. KA says:

    One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. At a Regents meeting last week, reported the Los Angeles Times, Blum expressly threatened that Feinstein would publicly denounce the university if it failed to adopt far more stringent standards than the ones it appeared to be considering, and specifically demanded they be binding and contain punishments for students found to be in violation.

    The San Francisco Chronicle put it this way: “Regent Dick Blum said his wife, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ‘is prepared to be critical of this university’ unless UC not only tackles anti-Jewish bigotry but also makes clear that perpetrators will be punished.” The lawyer Ken White wrote that “Blum threatened that his wife … would interfere and make trouble if the Regents didn’t commit to punish people for prohibited speech.” As campus First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn put it the following day, “Feinstein and her husband think college students should be expelled for protected free speech.”

    Intimidation is the default language and the protected position of the Zionist.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  94. @KA

    Piss on that career political hack Dianne Feinstein, and piss on her (third) husband Richard Blum. Blum undoubtedly benefited from his wife’s power and influence in landing lucrative government contracts. And neither of them believes in free speech, at least where Israel is concerned.

    Ari Cohn’s right, and I hope the university authorities disregard those two scumbags.

  95. AndrewR says:

    I never claimed that the evangelical masses dictate foreign policy. But, as you alluded to, the enthusiastic consent of tens of millions of Americans to Israeli control of US foreign policy is certainly not good for the US and very good for its Israeli masters. The meme on the right (including much of the alt-right) that religion is some net force for good in society is proven absurd by the evangelical love affair with Israel.

  96. AndrewR says:

    As long as fealty to Israel remains a prerequisite for higher office in the US, your idea shall be impossible.

    • Replies: @KA
  97. KA says:

    “Also engaged in keeping the pressure on Iranians is Adam Szubin, AIPAC supporter and former director of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which enforces sanctions. Mr. Szubin has recently been appointed the U.S. Treasury’s acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. He has made plain this past month that pressure on Iran will intensify and those who fantasize about doing business with the Islamic Republic, with or without sanctions, will face more hurdles. The latter includes, for example, barring from U.S. markets any foreign banks who knowingly or unknowingly engage in and transaction with any firm doing any business with Khatam al-Anbia (the Iranian construction company owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC).”
    Agents of Israel are running amok and unhinged within the administration . They have no weapon other than misuse of power with intimidation

  98. KA says:

    Intimidating Argentina to return to the line-

    ” Fernández has claimed that Nisman’s death may have been stage-managed by Stiuso in order to incriminate her and destabilize her government. Stiuso’s exact whereabouts have been unknown since shortly after he testified at the judicial inquiry into Nisman’s death. Media reports have alleged that he is in Miami.

    On Wednesday, Argentina’s cabinet chief of staff, Anibal Fernández, said that the US had failed to respond to eight formal requests for details on the missing spy chief’s whereabouts.

    Oscar Parrilli, head of the Federal Intelligence Agency, said Argentina planned to summon the American ambassador to Buenos Aires, Noah Mamet, to explain “the absolute lack of response and in some ways complicity in this situation”.

    Earlier this week, President Fernández alluded to Stiuso in her address to the United Nations general assembly in New York, although she did not name him. “I would say that he is being protected. Protected from what? I don’t know,” she said.

    Argentina’s foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, also accused the US of harbouring Stiuso, in an interview with the Buenos Aires daily Página/12 on Wednesday. “The lack of cooperation shown by Obama’s government is startling,” Timerman said. “Stiuso must enjoy some degree of protection that has allowed him to live in hiding for so many months. He is surely being protected by his contacts in the US secret services.”

    “Stiuso had been one of Nisman’s closest collaborators in the investigation into the 1994 blast”

    Intimidation , at least from Argentinian experiences go beyond simple bribing or doling out lot of money money or flooding the TV with messages .

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.