Interesting Reading: American Sniper’s Myths and Misrepresentations

This is some seriously interesting reading:

Few these days will admit to supporting the 2003 Iraq invasion, especially given that we now know that it helped give rise to ISIS. But the forerunner and current ally of ISIS was al-Qaeda in Iraq [AQI], bad people defeated by sometimes reluctant heroes in places the Baghdad-centric media avoided. I know; I have both celebrated and suffered with them. And I now suffer disgust at how Clint Eastwood used one of them—deeply troubled and flawed—and denigrated the others for a box-office and Oscar bonanza.

I was embedded twice with SEAL Team Three, American Sniper author Chris Kyle’s unit, as a photo-journalist in Task Force Currahee. At that time it was deployed to what was the headquarters of AQI and perhaps the most violent part of most dangerous city in the world, during what’s now known as The Battle of Ramadi. My first firefight was with ST3; like everything else these days you can watch it on YouTube. Ramadi claimed the lives of the first four SEALs to die in Iraq; my two journalist predecessors were both shot by snipers; an IED claimed my own public affairs “handler,” Marine Maj. Megan McClung. I escaped injury during both embeds, but my previous one in Fallujah led to a horrific noncombat injury and seven surgeries.

All of which is to say that I’ve got a stake in making sure that the story of the warriors I knew is told the right way—the truthful way. Which brings me to “American Sniper.”

via American Sniper’s Myths and Misrepresentations | The American Conservative.

As someone who supported the invasion of Iraq originally in 2003 and until it became very obvious that there was no WMD’s, which is why we went in there in the first place —- and sorry, parts for bombs from the first gulf war do not count at all; we went looking for ACTIVE and NEW bombs —-  this article is very interesting to read. One thing I will say is that the neoconservatives and their contemporaries in the media will do all that they can to portray war as something righteous, romantic or glamorous.

As someone who has had family members in various wars over the years; I can tell you first hand that none of that nonsense is even remotely true about any sort of war. War, my friends, is literally hell on earth. It damages people. For example, my Grandmother’s step-brother served in World War 2. He came back shell-shocked; we was never ever able to work after that either. My Mom has told me stories that my grandmother told her, about her step-brother roaming the house at night, because of his flashbacks. It scared my grandmother to death. The point is this: War should never be used as a political tool, as was the case with the Iraq War. It should only be used as very last resort, when all other means have been exhausted.

Which is just how Ronald Reagan conducted his foreign policy. He never used the United States military, unless he felt that the Republic of the United States was in mortal danger. It was a sensible foreign policy and one that the Republican Party should adapt as their own and stop taking marching orders from the neoconservative right. Our Nation would be better off, as a result.

 

I have a bad feeling about Iraq, that we are going back there, again…..

This is sad and I have a bad feeling as to what is coming…:

The Story:

Iraq’s government is investigating reports that the ancient archaeological site of Khorsabad in northern Iraq is the latest to be attacked by the Islamic State militant group.

Adel Shirshab, the country’s tourism and antiquities minister, told The Associated Press there are concerns the militants will remove artifacts and damage the site, located 15 kilometers (9 miles) northeast of Mosul. Saeed Mamuzini, a Kurdish official from Mosul, told the AP that the militants had already begun demolishing the Khorsabad site on Sunday, citing multiple witnesses.

On Friday, the group razed 3,000-year old Nimrod and on Saturday, they bulldozed 2,000-year old Hatra — both UNESCO world heritage sites. The move was described by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon as a “war crime.”

via Associated Press.

I hate to say it; but, I have sinking feeling that the United States is going to have to end up going back into Iraq again. This time to destroy ISIS in Iraq and maybe even Libya too; and possibly the entire Arab peninsula. I hope like heck that I am wrong about it; but I have a bad feeling. We, of course, will not be doing it alone. But, we and the coalition allies will be going into the middle east again.

Of course, this will be used as a recruitment tool for the likes of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Not to mention all of the rest of the things that go with war. It is a sad thing; but, at this point, I do believe that it is inevitable. I just hope that this Presidential administration  manages things this time better than the last one did. The last one was a disaster. I have my doubts about that too. Because the track record is just not that good. Normally, I would just pray for peace; but in this case, with this ISIS group — that is just not possible. If anything at all, I pray that the Nations that ISIS are in and are conducting terrorist actions, would rise up and attack these terrorists, so that the United States would not have to do it. However, if I know things like I do; they will not do it and will rely on the United States to bring its military in to deal with the problem.

There are people who will want to blame Bush for this mess. I think that would be foolish, at this point. Because President Bush had a plan in place, that would have insured Iraq’s safety for many years to come. However, President Obama came in and changed the plan and pulled out the troops before the plan could even be implemented. Because he was under pressure from the anti-war faction of his party.

Now, because of that idiotic move; we now have ISIS and it is a bigger problem than Al-Qaeda ever was and are much crazier. So, it is back to the war game. Hopefully, the Republic will survive.

(Cross-posted to Beforeitsnews.com)

UAE conducts airstrikes on ISIS oil pipelines

Good to see that someone else besides The US having to the heavy lifting against ISIS.

The story:

The United Arab Emirates said Saturday its warplanes had carried out raids against oil installations held by the Islamic State group, which controls large swathes of Iraq and Syria.

The state news agency WAM did not say where the raids struck, only that UAE fighter jets took off overnight Friday from their base in Jordan, another partner in the US-led coalition against the jihadists.

“UAE Air Force F-16 squadron deployed to an airbase in Jordan conducted fresh air strikes last night against the terrorist organization (ISIS),” WAM said.

The planes hit several ISIS “operation and extraction points along crude oil pipelines in order to dry up the terror group’s sources of funding”, it said, adding they all returned safely.

It was the second reported air strikes by UAE aircraft since February 16 when warplanes from the Gulf federation also took off from Jordan and hit oil refineries held by ISIS.

via UAE Airstrikes Hit ISIS Oil Pipelines – Middle East – News – Arutz Sheva.

 

Hmmmmmm: Did Osama Bin Laden have ties to Iran?

Neocon propaganda or fact? I report, you decide.

The Story:

This week, prosecutors in New York introduced eight documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan as evidence in the trial of a terrorism suspect. The U.S. government accuses Abid Naseer of taking part in al Qaeda’s scheme to attack targets in Europe and New York City. And prosecutors say the documents are essential for understanding the scope of al Qaeda’s plotting.

More than 1 million documents and files were captured by the Navy Seals who raided bin Laden’s safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May 2011. One year later, in May 2012, the Obama administration released just 17 of them.

While there is some overlap between the files introduced as evidence in Brooklyn and those that were previously made public in 2012, much of what is in the trial exhibits had never been made public before

via New Docs Reveal Osama bin Laden’s Secret Ties With Iran | The Weekly Standard.

Interesting….

The Mahablog says:

They don’t quit. The neocons at National Review — including Stephen Hayes, who will insist on his deathbed that before 9/11 Mohamed Atta did too meet with agents of Saddam Hussein in Prague — now are flogging documents that “reveal”Osama bin Laden had secret ties to Iran.

Yes, and I’m Shirley Temple’s zombie.

If you keep reading the articles, it turns out that these documents say nothing about secret ties to the Iraniangovernment, just that a small number of al Qaeda operatives had been in Iran, somewhere, doing something, including “training.” But for all we know their long-term plans were to set off bombs in Tehran, not attend parties with the ayatollahs.

The documents were among those recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound and were introduced in court in the trial of “a terrorism suspect.” I believe they are referring to Faruq Khalil Muhammad ‘Isa, a Canadian national currently on trial in Brooklyn for murdering five U.S. servicemen in Iraq in 2009. However, for some reason, the National Review propagandists are not calling this suspect by name or imagining he has secret ties to Iran. I guess they have no beef with Canada. Yet.

No Quarter Says this:

Fox News is busy today carrying water for the NeoCons and the Netanyahu crowd with the claim that the Obama Administration is sitting on intel recovered from Osama Bin Laden’s porn palace in Abottabad 5 years ago that shows Iran and Al Qaeda are working together.

Horseshit!! We’ve seen this play before. Remember the hot insistence by many of these same characters in late 2001 and thru 2002 that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were working in tandem? Laurie Mylroie, who allegedly had been involved romantically with a senior Iraqi military guy, was the go-to gal for people like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney in “proving” that link.

[…]

Iran and Al Qaeda are not ideologically nor theologically soulmates. They are diametrically opposed. Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni entity. They despise Shias. There was a time about 20 years ago when Bin Laden, in a visionary move, sought to build ties with the Shia and Iran. That is true. But, over time, AQ became more sectarian and more opposed to all things Shia.

The current effort to link AQ and Iran has one purpose–derail and/or thwart any potential agreement with Iran on its nuclear program. Just keep this in mind as the propaganda floods the networks on the eve of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress next week.

Only blogger who is saying basically, “Yeah boy howdy! We gotta nuke Iran!” is this guy here. Not mention posting racist photos like this here:

Neocons, racist?

No wonder the war party got sacked in the last election. :roll:

You know, I am just going to say this; it is pretty freakin’ bad, when a Paleoconservative, like myself, has to point out the fact that those who support the Neoconservatives, are stooping to racism of this low-brow sort. In case this knucklehead above has forgotten; the Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln and they should start acting like it. Instead of the racists of the old Democratic Party. But, then again; are not neocons former Democrats? Why, Yes! Yes they are! …and they brought their Wilsonian foreign policy and their ugly bigotry with them.

I could see running into something like this, on, maybe, Stormfront. But, on a so-called Conservative blog? Come on. :mad:

The best words that John Mccain has ever spoken

These are the words of Senator John McCain from the Senate floor. Via his website:

“Mr. President, I rise in support of the release – the long-delayed release – of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s summarized, unclassified review of the so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It is a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose – to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies – but actually damaged our security interests, as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

“I believe the American people have a right – indeed, a responsibility – to know what was done in their name; how these practices did or did not serve our interests; and how they comported with our most important values.

“I commend Chairman Feinstein and her staff for their diligence in seeking a truthful accounting of policies I hope we will never resort to again. I thank them for persevering against persistent opposition from many members of the intelligence community, from officials in two administrations, and from some of our colleagues.

“The truth is sometimes a hard pill to swallow. It sometimes causes us difficulties at home and abroad. It is sometimes used by our enemies in attempts to hurt us. But the American people are entitled to it, nonetheless.

“They must know when the values that define our nation are intentionally disregarded by our security policies, even those policies that are conducted in secret. They must be able to make informed judgments about whether those policies and the personnel who supported them were justified in compromising our values; whether they served a greater good; or whether, as I believe, they stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.

“What were the policies? What was their purpose? Did they achieve it? Did they make us safer? Less safe? Or did they make no difference? What did they gain us? What did they cost us? The American people need the answers to these questions. Yes, some things must be kept from public disclosure to protect clandestine operations, sources and methods, but not the answers to these questions.

“By providing them, the Committee has empowered the American people to come to their own decisions about whether we should have employed such practices in the past and whether we should consider permitting them in the future. This report strengthens self-government and, ultimately, I believe, America’s security and stature in the world. I thank the Committee for that valuable public service.

“I have long believed some of these practices amounted to torture, as a reasonable person would define it, especially, but not only the practice of waterboarding, which is a mock execution and an exquisite form of torture. Its use was shameful and unnecessary; and, contrary to assertions made by some of its defenders and as the Committee’s report makes clear, it produced little useful intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of 9/11 or prevent new attacks and atrocities.

“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.

“I know, too, that bad things happen in war. I know in war good people can feel obliged for good reasons to do things they would normally object to and recoil from.

“I understand the reasons that governed the decision to resort to these interrogation methods, and I know that those who approved them and those who used them were dedicated to securing justice for the victims of terrorist attacks and to protecting Americans from further harm. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was onerous.

“I respect their dedication and appreciate their dilemma. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for them to use these methods, which this report makes clear were neither in the best interests of justice nor our security nor the ideals we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.

“The knowledge of torture’s dubious efficacy and my moral objections to the abuse of prisoners motivated my sponsorship of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ of captured combatants, whether they wear a nation’s uniform or not, and which passed the Senate by a vote of 90-9.

“Subsequently, I successfully offered amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which, among other things, prevented the attempt to weaken Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and broadened definitions in the War Crimes Act to make the future use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ punishable as war crimes.

“There was considerable misinformation disseminated then about what was and wasn’t achieved using these methods in an effort to discourage support for the legislation. There was a good amount of misinformation used in 2011 to credit the use of these methods with the death of Osama bin Laden. And there is, I fear, misinformation being used today to prevent the release of this report, disputing its findings and warning about the security consequences of their public disclosure.

“Will the report’s release cause outrage that leads to violence in some parts of the Muslim world? Yes, I suppose that’s possible, perhaps likely. Sadly, violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world today. But that doesn’t mean we will be telling the world something it will be shocked to learn. The entire world already knows that we water-boarded prisoners. It knows we subjected prisoners to various other types of degrading treatment. It knows we used black sites, secret prisons. Those practices haven’t been a secret for a decade.

“Terrorists might use the report’s re-identification of the practices as an excuse to attack Americans, but they hardly need an excuse for that. That has been their life’s calling for a while now.

“What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise, since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism. And I suspect the objection of those same officials to the release of this report is really focused on that disclosure – torture’s ineffectiveness – because we gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer. Too much.

“Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information than actionable intelligence. And what the advocates of harsh and cruel interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn’t have gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane methods.

“The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an insult to the many intelligence officers who have acquired good intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert we can’t win this war without such methods. Yes, we can and we will.

“But in the end, torture’s failure to serve its intended purpose isn’t the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said, and will always maintain, that this question isn’t about our enemies; it’s about us. It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s about how we represent ourselves to the world.

“We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by exemplifying our political values, and influencing other nations to embrace them. When we fight to defend our security we fight also for an idea, not for a tribe or a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion or for a king, but for an idea that all men are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. How much safer the world would be if all nations believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget it ourselves even momentarily.

“Our enemies act without conscience. We must not. This executive summary of the Committee’s report makes clear that acting without conscience isn’t necessary, it isn’t even helpful, in winning this strange and long war we’re fighting. We should be grateful to have that truth affirmed.

“Now, let us reassert the contrary proposition: that is it essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remember at all times that they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others – even our enemies.

“Those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history, by our nation’s highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them, by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. We need only remember in the worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

“Thank you.”

God Bless Him for standing up for what is right.

(via Memeoradum)

Video: Art Thompson on Dangers of Arming ‘Moderate’ Muslims

(via JBS HQ)

On Obama’s Iraq Airstrikes

I was away on personal business and I did not have a chance to comment on what’s happening in Iraq.

Here’s the video of the announcement from President Obama: (via The White House)

Now, there are doubters. Via the Daily Beast:

Friday morning, with a humanitarian mission already underway, the United States began airstrikes on ISIS in northern Iraq. What had been the U.S. policy—to rely on local forces to contain ISIS while waiting for a new Iraqi government to reach a political solution—is finished. The new policy is still taking shape, but it may eventually lead to more involvement from the special operations troops who have been in Iraq for weeks.

President Obama said Thursday night he had authorized airstrikes to protect American personnel and the Yazidi minority group stranded by ISIS on top of Mt. Sinjar. A senior administration official later stressed to reporters that U.S. forces were not launching a “sustained campaign” against ISIS in Iraq.

But with the Kurds, America’s closest allies in the fight, recovering from heavy losses, some analysts and military veterans say that airstrikes alone may not be enough to turn the tide. A sustained—if small-scale—campaign may be the only way to achieve that.

…..and, of course, the neocon hawks:

President Obama’s limited strikes on ISIS in northern Iraq are “pinpricks” that are “meaningless” and “worse than nothing,” according to one of his fiercest foreign policy critics, Sen. John McCain.

By committing U.S. military forces to fight again in Iraq while explicitly limiting the mission to protection of American personnel and Iraqi minorities, Obama has failed to come up with a plan that has any hope of stopping the ISIS advances across Iraq and Syria, said McCain. It’s a position that puts him somewhat at odds with other Republicans, who are offering cautious support for the airstrikes in Iraq – and concern that the president doesn’t have a comprehensive strategy to combat the growing threat of ISIS..

McCain, a consistent advocate for the application of American military power around the world, has long pushed for greater U.S. involvement in Iraq. But these strikes Friday were not what McCain had in mind.

“This is a pinprick,” McCain told The Daily Beast in an interview Friday, about the two 500-pound smart bombs U.S. airplanes dropped on ISIS convoys Friday. The vehicles were approaching Erbil, the capital city of Iraqi Kurdistan, were many U.S. diplomatic and military personnel reside.

Now, honestly, I am going to give the President the benefit of the doubt and I am going to hope like heck, that the President knows just what the heck he is doing. As for what the President is doing and whether it will be enough or not — I have one thing to say about it — We will soon find out.

Because if it is not enough and we do kill some of those ISIS members; and it does not wipe them out and only strengthens them, we could very well find ourselves in another protracted battle in Iraq. I would hope that this would not be the case; but I have my doubts. I will say this: I highly doubt that President Obama will be as careless and reckless in his fighting this battle, as Bush was during the Iraq War that lasted for 8 years.

I just hope that I am right; for the sake of America.

Others: The American ConservativeHot AirBusiness Insiderhis vorpal swordWashington Post,National ReviewDemocracy in AmericaInformed CommentThe Moderate VoiceThe DishSaudi GazetteSpectatorVodkaPunditAssociated PressTalking Points Memo and McClatchy Washington Bureau (Via Memeorandum)

Military build up begins in Iraq

They are actually doing it again. Building up for another war. This time it might last for a very long time.

The story:

The United States has sent Apache attack helicopters to Iraq as part of the buildup in U.S. military personnel, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Officials would not say how many of the armed helicopters have been sent to the country, stating only that they will be based in Baghdad and could assist with evacuations of American personnel.

The Pentagon also sent over additional surveillance drones.

President Obama on Monday sent 200 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to protect diplomatic facilities and personnel amid growing fears that Sunni militants in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) could overrun the country. The order brought the total number of U.S. ground forces in Iraq to 750.

On Monday, the State Department announced it was relocating some of its personnel from Baghdad.

Pentagon Press Secretary Adm. John Kirby declined Tuesday to say whether the situation in Iraq was getting better or worse, but said Iraqi forces in and around Baghdad are preparing to defend themselves.

“We have seen Iraqi security forces in and around Baghdad begin to reinforce themselves and prepare to defend, and they are taking the offensive. And we saw this over the weekend up near Tikrit. So it’s a contested environment right now,” Kirby said.

“The situation on the ground continues to change. It’s very fluid. It’s dynamic. The threat to Baghdad is still very legitimate. And we also want to make sure that we are doing what we can to help our colleagues in the State Department continue to function out of the embassy there and to have the flexibility, if they want to make resource and manning changes there, that we’re able — we’re in a position to help them do that,” Kirby said.

via Pentagon sends attack helicopters to Iraq | TheHill.

It looks like the Neoconservatives and the war party have won again.

Jerry Kerry says Russia has till Monday get out of Crimea or else

Yep, doing just as I reported, setting us up for war. All we need is that false flag operation to start.

The Story:

Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance.

Kerry will travel to London for a Friday meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ahead of a Sunday referendum vote in the Crimea region to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.

U.S. and European officials argue that Moscow is orchestrating the referendum and waging an intimidation campaign with thousands of Russian troops controlling the region. If Russian-backed lawmakers in Crimea go through with the Sunday referendum, Kerry said the U.S. and its European allies will not recognize it as legitimate under international law.

The U.S. and Europe on Monday would then unite to impose sanctions on Russia, Kerry told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Thursday during a hearing on the State Department’s budget.

“There will be a response of some kind to the referendum itself,” Kerry said. “If there is no sign [from Russia] of any capacity to respond to this issue … there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday.”

“Our hope is to have Russia join

via John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine | WashingtonExaminer.com.

Here’s the real kicker:

He said that currently Russia does not have the assets positioned to “march in and take over all of Ukraine but that could change and we recognize that.”

“I’ve been impressed on how united our European allies are on this… to a person, to a country, they are very, very committed to make sure there is accountability,” he said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who was chairing the hearing, asked how this showdown with Russia in Ukraine is impacting efforts to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.

When Obama threatened to make good on his red-line threat to Syrian leader Bashar Assad, Russia helped avert U.S. military strikes by offering to step in and negotiate arrangements to have Damascus destroy its chemical weapons.

Kerry said Russia had been helpful in pushing Syria on tighter deadlines for locating, moving and destroying its stockpile, but considering the crisis in Crimea, their cooperation going forward is an open question.

“Now there’s a question mark about where that’s going to go,” he said.

This is going to be very interesting. Quite indeed.

Is the US getting ready to perform a false flag to drag us into World War 3?

It sure does seem so.

Check out this video, by Susan Duclos who blogs over at Wake Up America.

Now the story via Susan Duclos over at Before It’s News:

If this is true and since the hacker group Anonymous is famous for hacking into high level documents and emails, it most likely is true, then this is a blockbuster bombshell!

 

Hacked emails to and from US Army Attache Assistant in Kiev Jason Gresh with Ukrainian General Staff Igor Protsyk, discuss plans to arrange a massive attack on transport hubs and Ukrainian military bases in order to “frame-up the neighbor,” and “create favorable conditions for Pentagon to act.”

 

The emails from Igor are in Russian, so the link is here for anyone that reads Russian but the email from US Army Attache Assistant in Kiev Jason Gresh is in English and the ramifications of it are enormous.

 

Events are moving rapidly in Crimea. Our friends in Washington expect more decisive actions from your network.
I think it’s time to implement the plan we discussed lately. Your job is to cause some problems to the transport hubs in the south-east in order to frame-up the neighbor.
It will create favorable conditions for Pentagon and the Company to act.
Do not waste time, my friend.

Respectfully,
JP

Jason P. Gresh
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Assistant Army Attaché
U.S. Embassy, Kyiv
Tankova 4, Kyiv, Ukraine 04112
(380-44) 521 – 5444 | Fax (380-44) 521 – 5636

http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/
http://usembassykyiv.wordpress.com/
http://www.facebook.com/usdos.ukraine
http://www.youtube.com/user/USEmbassyKyiv
http://www.flickr.com/photos/usembassykyiv

Then, there’s this via KyivPost: (H/T to Before It’s News)

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States General Martin Dempsey has claimed that in the case of an escalation of unrest in Crimea, the U.S. Army is ready to back up Ukraine and its allies in Europe with military actions. 

According to the Web site of the Atlantic Council, Dempsey said that “he’s been talking to his military counterparts in Russia, but he’s also sending a clear message to Ukraine and members of NATO that the U.S. military will respond militarily if necessary.”

“We’re trying to tell [Russia] not to escalate this thing further into Eastern Ukraine, and allow the conditions to be set for some kind of resolution in Crimea. We do have treaty obligations with our NATO allies. And I have assured them that if that treaty obligation is triggered [in Europe], we would respond,” Dempsey said.

According to the General, the incursion of Russian troops into the Crimea creates risks for all the countries of Europe and NATO allies.

“If Russia is allowed to do this, which is to say move into a sovereign country under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians in Ukraine, it exposes Eastern Europe to some significant risk, because there are ethnic enclaves all over Eastern Europe and the Balkans,” Dempsey said. 

If I were the MSM, I would be all over this one. I would hate to think that the Obama Administration would pull something this bone-headed; seeing that his popularity, even among liberal Americans is not that great. But, then again, stranger things have happened with this President.

 

John Podhoretz gets exposed for the intolerant Trotskyite that he truly is

This is great;  a Trotskyite Zionist goes for a debate; and the minute he sees that he is losing the debate — he storms off the stage, takes his marbles and goes home.

I am referring to the greatest Trotskyite, Zionist, Neoconservative of them all — John Podhoretz.

See here, here, here and here.

Money quote:

Bottom line: I’d had a long day and I didn’t see the point in spending more of it getting booed and shushed. So I left. So sue me.

If only we could sue you and your family for all the trillions of dollars — and the 4000+ lives that were  wasted in the Iraq War —- which you and your satanic Father were cheerleaders for, after 9/11. Actually, I would very much like to see criminal charges filed against you and few of your Trotskyite friends as well. However, as we realists know; that will never happened to a protected class as yourself.

You want to know what got wrong with Conservatism? You want to know why the GOP is in the shape that it is in? Look no further than this man here and his idiotic Trotskyite magazine that he runs. They are the true enemies of America; they are the ones who put us in the war that almost broke this Nation and ruined its standing in the world.

It is a pity that there is not true justice in this Nation of ours; otherwise, this man and his friends would be sitting in jail cells.

 

Sunday at the movies: Blood on the Sun (1945)

A 1945 film starring James Cagney and Sylvia Sidney. The film is based on the history behind the Tanaka Memorial document.
In pre-World War II Tokyo the American newspaper editor Nick Condon (James Cagney) working for an English-language daily paper aimed at the American business community is given a document relating to Japan’s foreign affairs which could have political ramifications if found.

He meets up with Iris Hilliard (Sylvia Sidney), a woman who wants to secure the document even if it means dealing with the Japanese secret police and their threats.

Director:
Frank Lloyd

Writers:
Lester Cole (screenplay), Nathaniel Curtis (additional scenes)

Stars:
James Cagney, Sylvia Sidney and Porter Hall

(via Mr. Films Chatten’s YouTube Page)

If I were the US, I would tell Afghanistan’s Karzai, “Sign the agreement or we leave in 48 hours!”

Next year?!?! How about in 48 hours?

The Story:

KABUL, Afghanistan –The White House threatened to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan next year, after President Hamid Karzai refused to sign a new bilateral security agreement.

Over the weekend, officials in Afghanistan endorsed a security deal that would keep United Stations troops in the nation beyond next year, but President Hamid Karzai denied the request. He wants the U.S. to bring more security to the country first. NBC’s Richard Engel reports.

The two countries remain deadlocked over future military involvement after an unsuccessful working dinner between Ambassador Susan Rice and Karzai at his palace in Kabul on Monday night.

In a statement, the White House said Karzai had outlined new conditions for a deal “and indicated he is not prepared to sign the BSA promptly.”

“Ambassador Rice reiterated that, without a prompt signature, the U.S. would have no choice but to initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan,” the statement said.

via US to Afghanistan’s Karzai: Sign security deal or we’ll pull out all troops next year – World News.

If I were the President and Susan Rice, I would simply tell Karzai that either he signs the agreement or our forces would be out of Afghanistan in 48 hours. However, before that, I would quite forcefully remind Karzai that the only reason he and his predecessor were even elected to power; was because the United States of America overran the Taliban by Military force and forced them to allow a democratically elected Government.

I would also tell him this; If we leave in 48 hours and your Government gets overran by the Taliban again and you happen to find yourselves under the Islāmic extremists again — do not call us, because the United States will NOT be coming back here at all. The United States came to Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden after 9/11 and in the process of that, defeated the Taliban. We got our man and our being here is now moot. Now, this idiot is playing hardball; well, I would play it right back; and tell him that either he signs or we leave — and he can deal with the fallout, we did our job as far as this writer is concerned. We really do not need to be there; but for the sake of a few kids, who we don’t want to see living under extreme Islāmic rule.

Next year… :roll: What is that going to do? Buy Karzai some time? I think it is time that we got tough with Karzai and tell him, “Either get with the program or we’re done with you and this Nation.”

Just my opinion.

Good: U.N. Calls For Release of Report on Bush-Era Torture

Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of the United Nations. However, I believe this to be a noble thing to do.

The video:

The transcript: via Via Democracy Now! (H/T to Crooks and Liars)

AMY GOODMAN: Ben Emmerson, finally, you’ve called on Britain and the U.S. to release confidential reports into the countries’ involvement in the kidnapping and torture of terrorism suspects, accusing them of years of official denials. Can you expand on that?

BEN EMMERSON: Yes, I presented in my last report to the Human Rights Council a series of principles on accountability for what are described in international law as gross or systemic human rights violations. And I think that there’s no doubt that the conspiracy that involved the commission of acts of secret detention, torture and rendition under the Bush administration constitute gross and systematic human rights violations. And international law is clear on this. There is no superior orders defense. There is no principle that would justify—just as at the Nuremberg trials there was no principle that would allow someone to say, “Well, this is what was ordered by my officials.” There must be—international law requires that there be—a system for achieving accountability.

And we know that the Feinstein Senate committee report into the activities of the CIA is said to be a very thorough and comprehensive analysis and to identify who made the decisions, who committed the acts alleged, and where and how and why. And a crucial part of the duty of accountability under international law is the so-called right to truth. And that’s a right that’s not just belonging to the victims, but to society at large. And, therefore, I mean, the time has come, unequivocally, for the release of the Feinstein report. I mean, if there have to be particular redactions in order to protect the identity of operatives from reprisals, so be it. But the key findings of the Feinstein report and of a parallel report commissioned and prepared and provided to the British prime minister in relation to the United Kingdom’s involvement in these activities must now be made public. And we will not stop calling for the publication of this material until at least a sufficient amount of it has been put into the public domain.

AMY GOODMAN: Ben Emmerson, I want to thank you for being with us, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, has issued an interim report on his investigation into U.S. drone strikes and targeted killings. His findings, along with a report by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, will be debated today at the U.N. General Assembly. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.

Again, while U.N. isn’t really something I am too fond off, as a Conservative. I have come to accept it; and think that doing things like the above, is a very good idea. Like it or not; the Bush Administration made some seriously bad mistake during the war, and in the attempt to get information for more terrorist attacks after 9/11, crossed some constitutional lines. Here is hoping that the parties involved are held accountable.

By rights, they SHOULD be held accountable by the United States Government; but we all know that will never happen. The US Democrats do not have the guts to pursue justice. This my friends, is a great American tragedy.

 

More black on white crime in Brooklyn, NY

More Black on white crime; and this time, it actually made the media.

The Story:

A group of 10 black youths — one of them a 12-year-old girl — surrounded a white couple’s car in Brooklyn, viciously beating the husband and yanking the wife to the pavement by her hair as they peppered the two with racial slurs, authorities said.

“Get those crackers!” some of them screamed, according to court papers. “Get that white whore!”

The confrontation erupted about 7 p.m. Monday, as the marauding group crossed Avenue U at E. 58th St. near Kings Plaza Shopping Center in Mill Basin.

Ronald Russo, 30, and his wife, Alanna, apparently had the green light and the husband honked at the group to get out of the way. The rowdy kids started kicking the car, according to the criminal complaint. Ronald Russo got out to check on potential damage to his vehicle.

And that’s when all hell broke loose.

RELATED: BROOKLYN PIPE ATTACKER EYED IN MIDTOWN BRICK BEATING

Ronald Russo was dragged to the ground. Then he was punched and kicked in the head. He felt more blows all over his body, investigators said. He suffered a fractured nose, a broken septum, a blood clot and abrasions to his shoulder. He was treated and released from Beth Israel Medical Center.

In the midst of the attack, there was a steady chorus of epithets. “White motherf—–!” screamed the attackers, who ranged in age from 12 to 18.

Alanna Russo, 30, was calling 911 when the 12-year-old girl pulled the woman’s hair and threw her to the ground. The victim’s head slammed into the concrete. She suffered a black eye, bleeding and difficulty breathing, prosecutors said, but she refused medical attention.

Her husband’s iPhone was stolen during the melee, according to cops.

via Brooklyn group of black youths blocks white couple’s car, bloody victims in racial attack: cops – NY Daily News.

Weasel Zippers reports:

Kashawn Kirton, 18, has been charged with gang assault, harassment and menacing charges, all as hate crimes.

Daehrell Finch, 17 has been charged with gang assault, assault, menacing and harassment but does not face hate-crime charges.

Two more teens, a 12-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, have also been arrested, but their names have not been released.

Urbangrounds has very good posting and gives some good advice:

The lesson here is obvious: If your car is ever surrounded by a mob of black youths, no matter what they say or do to your vehicle, DO NOT GET OUT OF THE CAR. Drive away. Drive over them if you have to. But do not get out of your car. Oh, and it should go without saying, but ALWAYS keep a loaded and readily-accessible hand-gun in your car. Because you never know where or when evil will raise it’s ugly head.

You can also too move away from areas where blacks tend to live too. Which is what I want to do so very bad. I wanna go live in the woods, and away from the city. I intend to get there; one day. Since Obama took office, there has been an noticeable uptick of black on white crime. Just Obama’s people doing what he told them to do, is the way I see it.

Previous black on white crime:

Best take down of Bill Keller ever!

I am, of course, referring to the idiotic op-ed piece by Bill Keller over at the NYT.

Here is the best part:

The truth is that America’s role in the world will not be significantly altered by refusing to attack Syria, and its truly vital interests will not be harmed. It is possible that the attack on Syria could end up being just as “unbelievably small” as John Kerry says it will be, but if there’s one thing Americans ought to have learned over the last decade it is that official promises that military action will be “limited” and of “short duration” are unreliable. This is partly because administration officials consistently underestimate the difficulty and risk of what they propose to do, and partly because launching attacks on other countries inevitably has effects and consequences that they fail to foresee. Instead of reassuring the public of their limited goals, administration efforts to downplay the significance of the attack they are proposing tells us that they may be oblivious to the risks of military action.

via Keller and the “New Isolationism” | The American Conservative.

So very true; and seeing how our men came back from Iraq, do we really want to do that again?

Bombing victim speaks out about Muslims and Terrorism

Glad to see this. :)

The Video is here. I was going to post it here, but it is an auto start embed and those drive people crazy! So, go to the link to view it!

The Story:

A Boston Marathon bombing victim hospitalized for weeks after the blasts lashed out at the mother of the accused bombers, calling Zubeidat Tsarnaeva “vile” for her jihad-laced rants and denials.

Michelle L’Heureux, a 38-year-old John Hancock consultant, told the Herald yesterday it’s time to stop being “politically correct” and speak out — making her one of the first victims to stand up to the terror-talking Chechen family.

“I feel a little bit of hatred towards her. I think she is a vile person,” L’Heureux said of the mom. “If you don’t like our country, get out. It’s as simple as that.”

L’Heureux lost most of her left knee in the blasts, and 30 percent of her hearing in her left ear. Her left arm is riddled with shrapnel scars, and there’s a piece of metal still inside her leg. She was 8 feet away from the first blast on Boylston Street. She came to the city to see her boyfriend cross the finish lin

via Bombing victim calls suspects’ mom ‘vile’ | Boston Herald.

If only more liberal Democrats felt this way, maybe we would have actually won the war on terror. Instead, because of the Democrat’s almost allergic reaction to war and because of the bungled methods of the Bush Administration — we lost it and badly. Oh, and BTW, I have seen where people have blamed this guy here for the loss of the Afghan war.  Sorry, but that is bunch of flipping malarkey and I think the person that wrote that knows it; he is just looking to deflect the fact that Bush’s mishandling of the war in Afghanistan and the overselling of the war in Iraq.

Plus too, I believe we pulled out too early of Iraq and Afghanistan; we could have done it better, but we needed more time. But, when you have a war weary nation, what can you do?

Others: Weekly StandardThe Jawa Report and Instapundit

No, Sorry, Dick (head) Cheney, I do NOT trust you or your idiotic successor in the White House!

Ol’ Dick (head) Cheney says that we ought to just trust the Government.

The Video: (Via Think Progress)

Okay here is the little small problem with trusting Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, they lied, as in like 935 times in a row, during their Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Prove it, you say? Sure.

Via The Center for Public Integrity, which is as follows:

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.

Anyhow, here is why I don’t trust Neocons, nor do I trust Democratic Party liberals or Neo-leftists:

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

  • On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “
  • In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
  • In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear.”
  • On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
  • On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
  • On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. 

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

A video:

The real sick and sad part is this; the same people that are having a hissy fit on the right about this program existing under Obama, are the same ones who were perfectly fine with it existing under Bush. In other words, they trusted the program under Bush. like idiots. My question to that crowd is this; why do  you not trust Obama? Because he is black or because he is a Democratic Party liberal?

Anyone and I mean anyone, who puts their trust in this Government of ours, based upon partisanship is nothing more than a darned fool in my opinion. Both of these political parties are two sides of the same coin and that is corruption and big Government socialism. Both parties promote it, both parties contribute to it. Government hand outs are Government hand outs; whether it be in the forum of welfare or Government subsidies. It is big Government statist and it flies in the face of our Constitution and in the face of what this great Nation was founded upon.

Others: Prairie Weather