As I wrote before, I did not vote for a Neo-Conservative, warmongering President. I did, however, vote for a President that would put America first, put an end to the DEI crap, put a stop to the transgender crap, put a stop to the racial quota crap, bring America back to place of dominance on the World’s stage and hold all accountable, Countries that were royally screwing America on trade.
President Trump did all of that and now, he has put America into a full scale War with Iran. (military operation my hairy white butt.😡)
Now, President Trump is saying that boots on the ground, might be necessary.
Oh, and we have lost six American troops, so far.
Wait….. What!?!? 😵💫
This puts me in a unique place. I voted for the President, I love it that he was a 360 degree turn from the Presidency and policies of Joe Biden. I also understand that a nuke in the hands of the radical leadership in Iran is crazier than an outhouse rat.
However, attempting to set up American style Democracy in the Middle East is also crazier than an outhouse rat too! We have tried that before and it just does not work.
Ideally, I would like to see a secular Country there, where Islam of all stripes, Christianity, and other religions can co-exist. It worked, somewhat in Iraq. Now in Iran, that is going to be a tall order, and huge mountain to climb.
The problem is that Shia Islam of the radical stripe is so entrenched in that Country, that undoing that is going to be very difficult and bombs and guns are not going to get that done. You have to understand, many of the people in that Country have been indoctrinated in that belief system, since childhood. Untangling that, is on par with untangling wire coat hangers! (Which are tools of Satan himself…. The coat hangers that is. 😂)
I will end with this: I voted for the for the President. I just hope like hell, that he knows what he is doing and I hope he is listening to reason within his cabinet. Because if he pulls a George W. Bush and screws this up; is going to hurt the United States for a very long time.
I guess it is because I am old. I am now 53 years old, and see a Republican President about to make the same mistake that George W. Bush made with Iraq.
Trump is now threatening war with Iran, while promoting peace in the Middle East. This via New York Post:
WASHINGTON — A defiant Iran has teamed up with fellow anti-West rogue nation Russia for a series of naval drills in the critical oil chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman — despite the Trump administration warning Tehran it’d be “very wise” to cut a deal now.
Russia and Iran have held joint naval exercises annually since 2019, but this time they come amid a growing American military buildup in the region and possible strikes.
The drills are intended to “prevent any unilateral action in the region,” Iranian navy Rear Adm. Hassan Maqsudlu told reporters, RadioFreeEurope reported.
The show of military might comes as the White House warned that “there are many reasons one could make for a strike against Iran.”
“The president has been very clear with respect to Iran or any country around the world, diplomacy is always his first option,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Wednesday.
“Iran would be very wise to make a deal with President Trump and with this administration.”
The Trump administration is about to learn a very important lesson, that you cannot use mob-type tactics with hostile nations. Now, with Iraq, they had old Soviet era airplanes, tanks and weapons. Iran is another story, they have modern airplanes, sold to them by Russia and there are Russians there as well, working with the Iran, doing these military exercises.
If you do not think that Russia would jump at the chance to join into a war with Iran, against the United States, you are very highly mistaken. Another thing to consider is; what about China? If you think that Iran and Russia would not put a call into China for help, if the USA started getting the upper hand, you are very highly mistaken. China’s military is three times the size of the United States Military.
I voted for America first policies, I voted for a President who would put America first. I did not vote for a President who would pursue Neoconservative style foreign policy. I did not vote for a Bush type President.
I just hope and pray that the Trump Administration does not overplay their hand.
This also includes the Saudi Government as well. I say this, because of this piece of news here, via YNetNews.com:
A state-aligned Saudi newspaper is calling for “surgical” U.S. strikes in retaliation against alleged threats from Iran.
The Arab News published an editorial in English on Thursday, arguing that after incidents this week against Saudi energy targets, the next logical step “should be surgical strikes.”
The editorial says U.S. airstrikes in Syria, when the government there was suspected of using chemical weapons against civilians, “set a precedent.”
It added that it’s “clear that (U.S.) sanctions are not sending the right message” and that “they must be hit hard,” in reference to Iran, without elaborating on what specific targets should be struck.
The newspaper’s publisher is the Saudi Research and Marketing Group, a company that had long been chaired by various sons of King Salman until 2014 and is regarded as reflecting official position.
Donald Trump’s national security adviser John Bolton wants the United States to go to war with Iran.
We know this because he has been saying it for nearlytwodecades.
And everything that the Trump administration has done over its Iran policy, particularly since Bolton became Trump’s top foreign policy adviser in April of 2018, must be viewed through this lens, including the alarming US military posturing in the Middle East of the past two weeks.
Just after one month on the job, Bolton gave Trump the final push he needed to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, which at the time was (and still is, for now) successfully boxing in Iran’s nuclear program and blocking all pathways for Iran to build a bomb. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – as the Iran deal is formally known – was the biggest obstacle to Bolton’s drive for a regime change war, because it eliminated a helpful pretext that served so useful to sell the war in Iraq 17 years ago.
Since walking away from the deal, the Trump administration has claimed that with a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, it can achieve a “better deal” that magically turns Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy bowing to every and any American wish. But this has always been a fantastically bad-faith argument meant to obscure the actual goal (regime change) and provide cover for the incremental steps – the crushing sanctions, bellicose rhetoric, and antagonizing military maneuvers – that have now put the United States closer to war with Iran than it has been since at least the latter half of the Bush administration, or perhaps ever.
In his White House statement 10 days ago announcing (an already pre-planned) carrier and bomber deployment to the Middle East, Bolton cited “a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings” from Iran to justify the bolstered US military presence. But multiple sources who have seen the same intelligence have since said that Bolton and the Trump administration blew it “out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually was”. Even a British general operating in the region pushed back this week, saying he has seen no evidence of an increased Iranian threat.
After Venezuela’s army decided not to rise up and overthrow Nicholas Maduro, by Sunday night, it was Iran that was in our gun sights.
Bolton ordered the USS Abraham Lincoln, its carrier battle group and a bomber force to the Mideast “to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”
What “attack” was Bolton talking about?
According to Axios, Israel had alerted Bolton that an Iranian strike on U.S. interests in Iraq was imminent.
Flying to Finland, Pompeo echoed Bolton’s warning:
“We’ve seen escalatory actions from the Iranians, and … we will hold the Iranians accountable for attacks on American interests. … (If) these actions take place, if they do by some third-party proxy, whether that’s a Shia militia group or the Houthis or Hezbollah, we will hold the … Iranian leadership directly accountable for that.”
Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself.
Did President Donald Trump approve of this? For he appears to be going along. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions. Last week, he canceled waivers he had given eight nations to let them continue buying Iranian oil.
Purpose: Reduce Iran’s oil exports, 40% of GDP, to zero, to deepen an economic crisis that is already expected to cut Iran’s GDP this year by 6%.
Trump has also designated Iran a terrorist state and the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, the first time we have done that with the armed forces of a foreign nation. We don’t even do that with North Korea.
Iran responded last Tuesday by naming the U.S. a state sponsor of terror and designating U.S. forces in the Middle East as terrorists.
[…]
Today, Trump’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation.
While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?
In late April, in an interview with Fox News, Iran’s foreign minister identified those he believes truly want a U.S.-Iranian war.
Asked if Trump was seeking the confrontation and the “regime change” that Bolton championed before becoming his national security adviser, Mohammad Javad Zarif said no. “I do not believe President Trump wants to do that. I believe President Trump ran on a campaign promise of not bringing the United States into another war.
“President Trump himself has said that the U.S. spent $7 trillion in our region … and the only outcome of that was that we have more terror, we have more insecurity, and we have more instability.
“People in our region are making the determination that the presence of the United States is inherently destabilizing. I think President Trump agrees with that.”
But if it is not Trump pushing for confrontation and war with Iran, who is?
Said Zarif, “I believe ‘the B-team’ wants to actually push the United States, lure President Trump, into a confrontation that he doesn’t want.”
And who makes up “the B-team”?
Zarif identifies them: Bolton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed.
Should the B-team succeed in its ambitions — it will be Trump’s war, and Trump’s presidency will pay the price.
After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, “Why is this our problem?”
Perhaps the most serious issue is North Korea’s quest for nuclear-armed missiles that can reach the United States. But the reason Kim is developing missiles that can strike Seattle or LA is that 28,000 U.S. troops are in South Korea, committed to attack the North should war break out. That treaty commitment dates to a Korean War that ended in an armed truce 66 years ago.
If we cannot persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons in return for a lifting of sanctions, perhaps we should pull U.S. forces off the peninsula and let China deal with the possible acquisition of their own nuclear weapons by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
Iran has no nukes or ICBMs. It wants no war with us. It does not threaten us. Why is Iran then our problem to solve rather than a problem for Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Sunni Arabs?
Nor does Russia’s annexation of Crimea threaten us. When Ronald Reagan strolled through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988, all of Ukraine was ruled by Moscow.
The Venezuelan regime of Nicolas Maduro was established decades ago by his mentor, Hugo Chavez. When did that regime become so grave a threat that the U.S. should consider an invasion to remove it?
During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo’s predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe’s quarrels and wars.
Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.
Bolton must go, if Trump wants to remain President. because those who elected him, who do not subscribe to the neocon foreign policy doctrine, will vote for someone else or not at all.
As I wrote yesterday, I have a bad feeling about the situation in the middle east, between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Well, this video, via CBN basically confirms my beliefs.
Here’s the video:
Looks like Chuck Baldwin was right. If this was the Saudi’s way of fighting terrorism, they just made a huge blunder and might have provoked something that they might not be able to stop themselves and at some point, America, of course, will get involved. 🙁
The neocon right is having a hissy fit about this story here, which is behind a paywall, of course. So, I really cannot quote it.
However, I just laugh when I see stories like this; because it proves what I happen to know about the neocon right; is that they are just straight up hypocrites, when it comes to Israel.
I mean, are these not the same people who think that we should be spying on every last mosque in America? Are these not the same people who happen to think that if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, when it comes to America spying on its own people?
The truth is Obama was spying on Israel and zionist members of Congress to see if there were any actual attempts to undermine the Iranian deal. Now, for the record, I have commented on that said deal and my feeling is that it stinks. However, what I think stinks worse, are that the neocons, in their blind hatred of this President, are not above trying to sabotage a deal with Iran, by leaking info to Israel for purposes of propaganda.
WASHINGTON — A ship carrying more than 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium materials left Iran for Russia on Monday in a step toward honoring Iran’s July 14 nuclear deal with major powers, the United States said.
Under the landmark nuclear accord, certain U.S., European Union and U.N. sanctions are to be removed in exchange for Iran accepting long-term curbs on a nuclear program that the West has long suspected was aimed at creating a nuclear bomb.
A key provision of the agreement — negotiated by Iran with the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany — is Tehran’s commitment to reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to below 660 pounds (300 kg).
If much further refined, low-enriched uranium can yield fissile material for nuclear weapons.
“The shipment included the removal of all of Iran’s nuclear material enriched to 20 percent that was not already in the form of fabricated fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in a written statement.
“This removal of all this enriched material out of Iran is a significant step toward Iran meeting its commitment to have no more than 300 kg of low-enriched uranium by Implementation Day,” Kerry added.
Implementation Day refers to the date when the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog, confirms Iran has taken a series of steps to curb its nuclear program, paving the way to U.S., EU and U.N. sanctions relief.
Kerry said the low-enriched uranium shipment would more than triple Iran’s “breakout time” of an estimated two-to-three months. “Breakout time” refers to the amount of time needed to obtain enough nuclear material to make a single atomic bomb.
With full implementation, the nuclear deal is supposed to push Iran’s breakout time to at least one year.
Now, while I think it is great that the deal is working, maybe. I do not believe that we should just blindly trust Iran, here is an example as to why. Via Fox News:
The Video:
The Story:
Despite the Obama administration touting its Iran nuclear deal as a triumph of diplomacy that finally thaws a four-decade freeze, Tehran appears to be doing all it can to keep the flames of confrontation burning.
The latest challenge was a missile launch over the weekend less than a mile from a U.S. aircraft carrier — which came on the heels of two other similar incidents, two ballistic missile tests, and the harsh treatment of American prisoners including a Washington Post journalist.
These provocations, with the country potentially weeks away from receiving billions in sanctions relief under the nuclear deal, are fueling renewed concerns in Washington about whether Iran will be held to account for violations.
“Missile-tests, cyber-attacks, Americans taken hostage, and now this,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in a statement Wednesday. “Until the Obama administration starts holding the Iranian regime accountable, we’ll see more of these hostile acts that put American lives in danger.”
The most recent confrontation occurred Saturday, when five Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessels approached the USS Harry S. Truman, and one of them fired multiple unguided missiles within 1,500 yards of the U.S. aircraft carrier transiting the Strait of Hormuz. It was the third such provocation in the past 14 months, a spokesman for the Navy’s 5th Fleet, responsible for operations in the Persian Gulf, told Fox News.
“It’s getting closer,” Cmdr. Kevin Stephens said in discussing this trend of Iranian provocation near U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups.
In April, as the USS Theodore Roosevelt exited the Strait of Hormuz to pursue an Iranian flotilla carrying weapons in the direction of Yemen, a group of Iranian Revolutionary Guard small boats launched 11 unguided rockets five nautical miles from the aircraft carrier, Stephens said. One nautical mile equals 1.151 miles.
In October 2014, a Navy helicopter from the USS George H.W. Bush also observed Iranian small boats launching several unguided rockets about eight nautical miles away, he said.
The group of missile boats that approached the USS Harry S. Truman, as well as her escort ships, the day after Christmas launched missiles within 1,500 yards of the aircraft carrier following an impromptu announcement over bridge-to-bridge maritime radio just 23 minutes earlier. The first missiles were launched from inside internationally recognized maritime traffic lanes and Omani territorial waters, according to Stephens.
The Iranian missiles were fired just after Truman and her escort ships exited the Strait of Hormuz, according to a defense official. The American aircraft carrier had helicopters in the air after the launch “closely observing” the boats, which passed away from the U.S. and French Navy ships. F-18 Super Hornets also were ready to launch from Truman had the situation escalated further, the defense official said. The Strait of Hormuz connects the Gulf of Oman to the Persian Gulf.
“The [Iranian Navy’s] actions were highly provocative. Firing weapons so close to passing coalition ships and commercial traffic within an internationally recognized maritime traffic lane is unsafe,” Stephens said.
The incident, first reported by NBC News, marks another flare-up as the Iranian nuclear pact is poised to take full effect.
Ahead of the planned sanctions relief, Iran earlier this week Iran shipped 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of the agreement.
Secretary of State John Kerry called the transfer a “significant milestone.”
Yet on the sidelines, congressional lawmakers have been fuming over a series of missile firings.
Fox News was first to report the Nov. 21 launch of a Ghadr-110, a medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 1,200 miles, capable of striking U.S. military assets in the region as well as Israel.
Following the Fox News report of the second ballistic missile launch, U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., wrote a letter to President Obama, signed by 35 of her GOP Senate colleagues, calling on the administration not to lift sanctions on Iran.
The launch in November followed a much more publicized ballistic missile launch inside Iran in October, which drew condemnation from U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power. The Iranian military released a video of the October launch as well as a video showing an underground network of tunnels where missiles are allegedly being stored.
Earlier this month, the United Nations said Iran had violated U.N. Security Council resolutions following the October launch. It is unclear how far the United Nations or United States will go to respond to the violations – though on Wednesday, the Treasury Department notified Capitol Hill of new pending sanctions against 11 individuals and entities accused of supporting Iran’s ballistic missile program.
Twenty-one Democratic senators also wrote to Obama last week voicing concerns about those missile launches.
“If there are no consequences for this violation, Iran’s leaders will certainly also question the willingness of the international community to respond to violations of the [nuclear agreement],” they wrote.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pointed to the latest rocket launch in the Strait of Hormuz in warning Wednesday against rushing into sanctions relief.
“[T]he Administration continues to turn a blind eye to Iranian saber rattling,” he said in a statement. “A rush to sanctions relief threatens to embolden an increasingly aggressive Iranian regime that has no intention of normalizing relations with the West or of retreating from a malign policy intended to destabilize the Middle East.”
Some lawmakers are pushing for Congress to renew an expiring Iran sanctions law, as leverage in case the U.S. needs to snap back sanctions should Iran violate the deal.
Yet Iran also is fuming over a Congress-passed law restricting people who have recently visited Iran or people holding dual Iranian citizenship from visiting the U.S. without a visa, a move the Iranian government called a violation of the nuclear agreement.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossein Jaberi Ansari said at a news conference that “any steps taken outside the agreement are unacceptable to Iran, and Iran will take its own steps in response where necessary.”
The point I am making is this: Foreign Policy is like a game of chess; and not like a game of cowboys and indians as the neocons like to think that is. Iran is simply testing our President, to see what his actions will be. The hawks want us to attack Iran, which would be a disaster, just like Iraq was in 2003. Obama would be wise to continue what he is doing and not allow the neocon hawks to influence his decision making.
Yes, I know all of the arguments made by those who support this deal. Yes, I know Israel and the US have nukes. I know. However, that, at this point, is a side issue.
The biggest reason that I do not support this Iranian deal, is because I simply do not believe that Iran can be trusted to abide by the agreement. – I believe that what you are going to see, in the future, is Iran playing the same game with the IAEA inspectors, just like we saw in Iraq back before the invasion of Iraq. This leads me to my third point.
This agreement will simply lead to more war in the middle east, between Iran and the western allies. — Israel and the Saudi’s might be united in their opposition to this agreement; but, if you think that the Saudi’s would be willing to go to war against Iraq to stop it. You are very highly mistaken. The Saudi’s would barely lift a finger to stop Iraq, much less help fight in the war.
The Democrats are flat-out lying about the deal, if they’re resorting to lying it; it stinks.
This comes via Conservative-Headlines.com, and I know some people might not like it that I linked to these guys. Well, you know what? Tough! This video is a eye-opener; and I really do not even like Alex Jones for some very good reasons.
https://youtu.be/pqj4WzgnxDc
Just like Al-Qaeda, ISIS was created by the United States. Our biggest threat as Americans, is not terrorism; it is our own Government.
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.”
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.
I was going to post this without any sort of commentary. However, I did watch the entire speech; and I have some thoughts.
I want to make it absolutely clear; I speak for myself only, not for any other Paleoconservatives, Republicans or any other sort — just myself.
Update: I forgot to add that, yes, I believe that trusting Iran and trying to make a deal with them is absolutely stupid. But, that is a separate issue.
I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is correct about his assessment of Iran is correct. I believe that Israel does have a legitimate complaint against Iran. Furthermore, I believe that Israel has a right to defend itself against threats from any sort of enemy.
However, unlike some; I am going to tell you about how I feel about Benjamin Netanyahu’s political stunt of basically telling the President of the United States to essentially “piss off” and coming to speak to Congress with no regard to the White House’s wishes. Folks, I would feel this way, if there was a Republican in the White House too. So, before anyone tries to say that, please, do not bother.
I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu’s political stunt showed great disrespect to the office President of the United States. I believe that the political stunt of Benjamin Netanyahu projected the image to many of Israel’s critics, such as myself and others; that the United States of America is an actual Zionist Occupied Government — which is the opinion of many of the more hateful types in this Country. Now, personally, I do not believe that to be the case; However, I also know that there are many lobby groups that take up the cause of Israel. The image of a foreign leader to address the Congress and to basically “Spank” the President of the United States is a grave insult to the office. Again, if there was a Republican in the White House and this happened, I would say the same very thing.
I said this very same thing, when the President of Mexico came to Congress and chastised them for their immigration laws. So, the charge of Anti-Semitism is not gonna fly here.
Enjoy the video:
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
