MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Lindsey Graham’

He’s a One-Man Ukrainian Lobby! – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on November 1, 2019

https://www.takimag.com/article/hes-a-one-man-ukrainian-lobby/

by Ann Coulter

He’s a One-Man Ukrainian Lobby!

I have a confession. I behaved badly recently, and I’m just going to admit it.

As a guest at a dinner party in Georgetown, I stormed in and started bossing everyone around. First, I demanded that the foyer be painted a different color and wainscoting be added to the dining room. Then I had my hosts assemble their children so I could give them all different names. Before making my exit, I grabbed two legs of turkey off the entree platter and stuffed them in my purse.

I have a second confession. None of that happened. But if it had, I would be exactly like Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.

He was born in Ukraine and raised there until age 3 1/2, when he was invited to our country. As you’ve no doubt heard, he served in our military. Thank you for your service, Colonel!

Now he is the top Ukrainian adviser on the National Security Council. Of all the people who could look out for the U.S.’s interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, we got someone who was born there.

As such, Vindman was permitted to listen to a phone call the president of the United States made to the president of Ukraine — a completely unnecessary, pro forma task.

So, naturally, when he had a policy disagreement with President Trump pertaining to the country he was born in, he thought he had a responsibility to agitate for removal proceedings against the duly elected U.S. president, just as I might have taken issue with the carpets in the Georgetown townhouse…

It would be bad enough if Col. Vindman’s policy disagreement with the president had to do with U.S. policy on Mexico or North Korea. But it was about the country where Col. Vindman was born.

We’re always told that Democrats don’t have to prove wrongdoing by Trump — for example, under the emoluments clause, in his foreign policy negotiations or when he fired his FBI director. Rather, it’s claimed that Trump’s conduct creates the appearance of impropriety.

Well, having a Ukrainian-born analyst butt in to ensure U.S. foreign aid flows effortlessly to the country of his birth gives the appearance that he’s concerned about fairness to Ukraine. That’s not what this is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about what’s in the best interests of the United States.

Worse, Vindman was dealing with the U.S.’s Ukrainian policy versus Russia, which Ukrainians hate because Stalin murdered millions of them. It’s like having an Armenian advise on whether we should be hostile to Turkey.

This is not the usual dual loyalty claim insultingly attributed to Irish or Jewish Americans who were born in this country. Lots of us have admixtures of other nationalities.

But when you were actually born in another country and that’s the precise policy matter you’re sticking your nose into, people are going to wonder if it’s really our national interests you’re looking out for.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Immigrants are required to wait a minimum of two (2) generations before bossing around the most successful, prosperous, free country on Earth, and fully three (3) generations before advising on our government’s policy toward the countries of their forefathers.

We also need a constitutional amendment directed at 10th-generation Americans who fancy themselves foreign policy experts. Foreign policy is the idiot’s shortcut to imagined erudition, the last refuge of the insufferable.

Sen. Lindsey Graham was on TV last week, bragging about how he’d been to Syria — Afghanistan? Iraq? Who cares! — 75 times.

Not one person who voted for Graham has the peace and contentment of Syrians on his Top Ten Concerns list. Like everyone else, South Carolinians care about their jobs, their safety, their neighborhoods, their country.

But Sen. Graham wouldn’t sound like a deep intellectual if he went on TV and started talking about water treatment plants, despite the fact that clean drinking water is of far greater interest to his constituents…

It would be annoying enough if government officials, whose salaries we pay, spent all their time working on the betterment of other nations, but at least everything turned out GREAT. In fact, however, they’re never right, they always make things worse, and they never pay a price because, again, no one cares.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Elected officials may take one government-funded boondoggle abroad for every three (3) trips they make to our southern border.

Be seeing you

thought mash

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Lindsey Graham: ‘Steal Syria’s Oil to Pay for US Occupation!’

Posted by M. C. on October 26, 2019

In case you the last 18 years were about freedom and humanitarianism…it is all about the oil.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2019/october/25/lindsey-graham-steal-syrias-oil-to-pay-for-us-occupation/

Written by Daniel McAdams

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been chewing down his fingernails ever since President Trump’s first suggestion that US troops should come home from the Middle East. Last December, when Trump made it clear that he wanted to end the US troop presence in Syria and let the people of the region take care of their own problems, Graham took to an accommodating media (across the supposed ideological spectrum) to slam, damn, and threaten the president for even entertaining such a thought.

“Withdrawal of this small American force in Syria would be a huge Obama-like mistake,” Tweeted Graham on December 19, 2018. It was a typical neocon act of duplicity: how could Obama be blamed for “withdrawal” when he’s the one who got us into Syria in the first place? Getting out would be the anti-Obama – but Graham never lets facts get in the way of his neocon hysteria.

Graham followed up with this threat in his typical theatrical style:

President Trump — I will help you any way I can … but because you’re a Republican, I’m not going to ignore what I believe…I’m going to give you an honest evaluation. I was willing to support a Democrat if he followed sound military advice. I’m willing to fight a Republican if you don’t.

Translation: if you even think about keeping your campaign promises to pull back from US troops in the Middle East I will do my best to take you down.

Lindsey Graham ran for president on exactly these themes against Trump in 2016: more war, more regime change, more US troops across the globe. He never broke one percent in the polls and by December 2015 he scurried off with his tail between his legs.

Americans resoundingly rejected Lindsey Graham’s foreign policy of war and conflict and embraced Trump’s foreign policy of “bring the troops home” and “get along with Russia.”

After the shrill reaction to last year’s withdrawal announcement (including a hissy fit by his then-Defense Secretary James Mattis), Trump moved to accommodate Graham and others in the neocon camp, putting his troop withdrawal order on hold while his subordinates “explained” that Trump didn’t really mean what he said.

Supporters saw yet another “flip-flop” and shook their heads at the weakness at the top.

At the beginning of this month, however, as US troops found themselves caught in a crossfire between the military forces of Turkey, Syria, Russia, and the Kurds, Trump sprung into action and ordered the relocation and ultimate removal of US forces from Syria. He likely saved the lives of more than a few US troops.

Once again though, Graham took to attacking Trump, confident that the President doesn’t really mean what he says – or that he can be convinced by a few threats to change his mind.

Graham inexplicably warned that removing US troops who are illegally occupying Syrian desert territory thousands of miles from home would put the US at risk! He again took to the fawning, pro-war mainstream media to elaborate:

I think he’s putting the nation at risk, and I think he’s putting his presidency at risk…And I hope he will adjust his policies like he did before. That would be actually be a sign of real leadership.

Shorter Graham: Trump’s a wimp. He’ll back down as he did before and we’ll pat him on the head and assure him that being weak is actually being strong.

Unfortunately Trump seems to have forgotten just how unpopular Lindsey Graham and the other neocons really are among not only his base of support, but across the board among Americans.

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) puts it, Lindsey Graham has been “wrong on every foreign policy issue this century.”

So why listen to Graham?

While literally every single American not inside the Beltway or the MSM propaganda machine views Sen. Lindsey Graham as a complete idiot on foreign policy, he still seems for some reason to hold sway over President Trump. Not a week after this latest Trump attempt to make it clear that the US was not just moving some troops from Syria to Syria but getting out of Syria, President Trump just yesterday did another flip-flop and decided to actually ADD more military equipment  (and likely personnel) to Syria.

“We’ll take their oil,” was Trump’s message. And, sadly, in that he again let Graham take the lead in the neocon’s murderous danse macabre.

As Lindsey Graham said yesterday, we’ll send in more troops and then steal their oil to make them pay for us sending in more troops:

…By increasing the production of the oil fields, we will be helping our Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) allies who fought bravely to destroy ISIS Caliphate. We can use some of the revenues from future Syrian oil sales to pay our military commitment in Syria.

That’s just what the neocons were arguing in 2002 as they pushed the war on Iraq. And we all know how that worked out. Trump is a chump for listening to Graham.

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

President Trump Is Right on Syria

Posted by M. C. on October 18, 2019

https://www.unz.com/article/president-trump-is-right-on-syria/

Let’s Hope He Follows Through this Time

The unified foreign policy establishment in Washington, the Deep State politicos—from Lindsey Graham and Lynne Cheney in Congress, to the inveterate Never Trumpers like Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal, [“he’s (Trump) all impulse, blithely operating out of his depth”], to the near totality of the progressivist Left (e.g. Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and others), have come together (as they always do) to protect their sacred commitment to globalism and, this time, in opposition to President Trump’s decision to finally withdraw American support troops from northeastern Syria.

If it is one thing that brings the “Swamp” together in solidarity it is a serious threat to their hegemony in administering America’s foreign policy. From the pseudo-conservative “right” to the loony Left, the one issue that unites these agents of the Managerial Administrative State is the absolute imperative for the United States “to be involved” practically everywhere in the world, the zealous pursuit of “democratization” and the imposition of “egalitarian” values—most significantly in our export of “educational” programs and the various strings attached to our voluminous aid packages. Such programs always follow in the wake of any boots on the ground. They are part and parcel of the Deep State’s attempt to re-fashion the world along the lines and with globalist postulates that are, in fact, inimical to the traditions and heritage of the American founding.

Such initiatives mirror in numerous ways the goals of international financiers and subversive globalist instigators such as George Soros, whose multiple “Europe without Borders” (“Europe sans frontiers”) initiatives involve the virtual destruction of that historic continent by dissolving national borders and via an open door policy towards immigration, most especially from “Third World” countries. Soros and his apparatchiks have run into fierce opposition from Hungary and its valiant Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and, to some degree, from Poland and now from Italy, under its more rightist populist government. Yet, for Soros such opposition is a mere hindrance. He and those internationalists like him continue feverishly their scheming towards a global “nation” founded on ruins of an older, Christian civilization.

Just as with the massive “re-education” of Europe following German defeat in 1945, the results are not always what we are informed they will be. In the case of post-war Germany, it was not only the tearing out, root-and-branch, of any supposed trace of Naziism and antisemitism, but the real and practical disauthorization of ANY actual, traditional conservative presence (including traditional, non-Nazi conservatives), to the point that German history was so completely re-written and sanitized as to make any defense of even pre-1918 Germany—of Prussian history—any defense of a “national German spirit,” the equivalent of “the recrudescence of antisemitism and Hitlerism.” Germans were taught and continue to be taught to despise and reject their past, not just the twelve year interregnum under Adolf Hitler, but in fact its near entirety. The German nation has become, in a real sense, one immense bog of continuous apologies and imposed, never ending penance.

The ignominious demise of Soviet Communism, a threat to us and our existence prior to 1991, in no way lessened the beating war drums and the dreams of international “democratization” or the desire for imposing “egalitarian values” emitted from the American foreign policy establishment. Nor its implicit, if not always seamless, tacit collaboration with the aims of uber-globalists like Soros. The specter of the George W. Bush years, of a John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and of Neocon “thought leaders” like Bill Kristol and James Kirchick demanding that the full panoply of “gay and lesbian rights” be implemented in Russia, that “democratic values” be imposed in Iraq, and that America intervene in Syria, are stark reminders that those policies continue full blast in the Swamp.

And thus when Donald Trump uttered the unutterable and ordered the withdrawal of American troops, he enraged not just the fanatics over on the progressivist Left, but the unelected managerial bureaucrats and Republican and “conservative” denizens of that same Swamp (who hold themselves condescendingly above all those rubes and deplorables out in the American hinterland). How dare the Trumpster question the “national consensus”! How dare he challenge the irrepressible advance towards world democracy and equality for everyone, everywhere! How dare he be so petty and insular as to reject “progress”!

Thus the howls of disapproval and anger directed at the president for his announcement last week that he is doing exactly what he declared he would do, both during his presidential campaign and back in December: withdraw American “advisers” from the Turkish border in extreme northeastern Syria.

Unlike the jeremiads one hears from nearly all the media, including Fox News and pundits like Chris Wallace and Brian Kilmeade, this decision was not unexpected, but had been in the planning stage and in the offing since this past December (when General Mattis resigned because he disagreed). The president just finally decided to follow through on his promise.

Perhaps the most pointed—and poignant—argument used by those who oppose the president is that we are leaving “our Kurdish allies in the lurch, we are deserting them,” placing them at the mercy of the Turks just across the border who have already begun to attack them. Those who make this argument appear to forget that the Marxist Kurdish resistance in that region has been and continues to be, in many respects, an anti-Turkish terror group hoping to carve out of Turkey a large area to be part of an independent Kurdish nation. Over the years they have engaged in various barbaric acts of terrorism and mayhem directed not only against the Turkish military but also against civilians. Our alliance with them, such as it was, was one of convenience: that we would offer them some temporary aerial cover, a kind of shield against their hereditary enemies, and in return they would assist us in that small area of northeastern Syria that continued to be subject of ISIS attacks.

This they did.

But too often we Americans suffer from both strategic and historical myopia...

And, given our very dubious record (at best) in the Middle East, our efforts at “democratization” and “peace-keeping” should have taught us a lesson or two. Unfortunately, the foreign policy Swamp and the globalists continue to believe that they can reconstruct human nature, with enough American advisers, enough American aid, enough secularized education and population re-programming and re-educating…and maybe a few body bags thrown in for good measure.

In so doing, they actually bring on the eventual demise of the America Empire.

Be seeing you

Photo: High Myopia R- 18,5 L -20,0 4 | -glasses album ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Trump Effect on Foreign Policy – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 17, 2019

Just in the 2016 election, Graham referred to Trump as a “jackass”. Now, he has realized that to remain relevant within the Party, he must adapt. This is true for many others as well, including Chuck Grassley and Donald Rumsfeld, neither of which one could hardly characterize as populists.

Graham – Selling out his mother (warparty neoconservatives) to remain in power.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/atilla-mert-sulker/the-trump-effect-on-foreign-policy/

By

Since the conception of his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had received backlash from a number of different political factions. Among these, were the “Never Trump Republicans”. This included the likes of multiple Bush administration officials, including Paul Wolfowitz and Hank Paulson, the latter voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Often many pundits declare that the GOP has become the party of Trump. This statement bears a lot of truth, given that most of the hardliner Never Trumpers have become irrelevant. Among these are major figures in neoconservative circles, including Bill Kristol, and John Kasich. Watching as their hardliner friends started to fade away, many Republicans who would certainly not be characterized as populists by any stretch, had to adapt to the Trump phenomenon. For if they had dissented along with their friends, they too would be pushed to the periphery.

Trump’s conducting of foreign policy well underscores this phenomenon of “necessary adaptation”, for the sake of remaining relevant. Many formerly aggressive Republicans had to adapt to Trump’s volatile “peace through strength” approach regarding diplomacy in say, North Korea. Among one of these Republicans, is Lindsey Graham…

Graham was recently on Fox News, discussing the firing of John Bolton, and potential replacements. Graham started off saying, “The one thing you got to learn about President Trump, that I’ve come to learn, is that he’s unconventional in a conventional way”. This clearly alludes to Graham’s “adaptation” to Trump’s conducting of policy. Graham even went as far to say that “It’s okay, I think, to talk with the Taliban… if there’s a reason to believe they’re going to accept peace and change their behavior”. Such a statement would be seen as a sin in neoconservative circles, for it violates the Bush doctrine- “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”.

What was even more peculiar for Graham, was to openly tell President Trump “I told the President, you’re right to want to reduce our commitment. You’re right to want to lower our cost”. Graham even went as far as to critique foreign interventionism, proclaiming “18 years later, what have we found? Al Qaeda’s still there. ISIS is there… We can’t do in Afghanistan what we did in Iraq… I’d like to end the war. And the only way you ever end a war is to get the two sides talking”. For a split second, Graham’s sentiment was reminiscent of Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

This phenomenon has big implications for Trump’s guiding of the GOP. Just in the 2016 election, Graham referred to Trump as a “jackass”. Now, he has realized that to remain relevant within the Party, he must adapt. This is true for many others as well, including Chuck Grassley and Donald Rumsfeld, neither of which one could hardly characterize as populists.

Trump’s “taking over” of the GOP has made its way into foreign policy. It has radically changed the direction of the Republican Party in ways one could have never conceived. Trump has embodied a volatile, “pufferfish” approach in foreign policy, one that could potentially swing the wrong way and lead to great cataclysm. So far however, it has had some implications of restraint, and has forced the neocon establishment to make changes in their conduct.

Be seeing you

Lindsey Graham Proves Ayatollah Right - America Is ...

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Will More US Troops in Saudi Arabia Make America Great?

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

Why should the military be sent to “defend” one of the wealthiest and most repressive countries on earth? It is hard to see how putting US servicemembers into harm’s way – into a war zone – to defend Saudi Arabia can in any way make America great again.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/23/will-more-us-troops-in-saudi-arabia-make-america-great/

Written by Ron Paul

President Trump deserves credit for resisting the war cries from neocons like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after last week’s attack on two Saudi oil facilities. Pompeo was eager to blame Iran because he wants war with Iran and anything that can trigger such a war is fine with him. So he put the president in a difficult spot by declaring Iran the culprit: suddenly the president’s options in the media and in Washington were limited to “how to punish Iran.”

A week has now passed since the attack and Pompeo’s rush to judgement has been shown for what it was: war propaganda. That is because there has still been no determination of who launched the attack. Yemen’s Houthis took responsibility right away and Iran denied any involvement. We have seen nothing to this point that contradicts this.

President Trump likely understands that a US war on Iran will be his undoing as president. Who knows, maybe that’s what his closest advisors want. But according to a Gallup poll just last month, only 18 percent of Americans were in favor of military action against Iran. Seventy-eight percent of Americans – including 72 percent of Republicans – want the president to pursue diplomatic efforts over war. Iran has made clear that any attack on its territory will trigger a total war. The Middle East would be engulfed in flames and the US economy would be in the tank. Suddenly we’d see Democrat challengers pretending to be antiwar!

The message to Trump is pretty clear – war with Iran would be deeply unpopular – and it seems clear he understands the message. Just hours after his Secretary of State put the US on war footing with Iran, President Trump was forced to walk back Pompeo’s aggression. When asked about going to war with Iran, President Trump said, “Do I want war? I don’t want war with anybody.”

Unfortunately, with pressure on President Trump to “do something” even as Iran has not been found to have been behind the attack, the president has settled on two measures – one pointless and the other dangerous. On Friday Trump announced yet even more sanctions on Iran, leaving many of us to wonder what is possibly left to sanction. He also announced a deployment of US military forces to Saudi Arabia of a “defensive nature.” Why should the military be sent to “defend” one of the wealthiest and most repressive countries on earth? It is hard to see how putting US servicemembers into harm’s way – into a war zone – to defend Saudi Arabia can in any way make America great again. I believe most Americans would agree.

President Trump should immediately cancel the order to send US troops to Saudi Arabia and should immediately remove what troops are already on Saudi soil. Then the Saudis would understand that they must end their aggression against Yemen.

Attempting to placate the neocons is a fool’s errand, because they are never satisfied even up to and including war. The tide is turning in America – and even in Washington – against Saudi Arabia. After the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and a catastrophic four-year Saudi war on Yemen, no American politician is any longer in the mood to stick his or her neck out to defend Saudi Arabia. President Trump would be wise to use caution: it’s always dangerous sticking one’s neck out when the Saudi government is around.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Locked and Loaded’ for War on Iran? – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on September 18, 2019

If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday – shutting down about 6% of world oil production – imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy.

Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?

All the hundreds of U$ billions in military aid and SA pipelines are completely unprotected and vulnerable.  Now SA is going broke getting it’s ass kicked in Yemen even with U$ help.

That will give you a clue as to how US war will go against Iran.

We can’t win against countries barely out of the stone age, some of the poorest and most backward on the planet.

Russia backed Iran is a horse of a different color.

SA (Israel) is thinking “better US soldiers die in an unwinnable war than Saudi (Israeli) citizens”.

https://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2019/09/16/locked-and-loaded-for-war-on-iran/

“Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world’s energy supply,” declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Putting America’s credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom’s oil production, 5.7 million barrels a day.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear, in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:

“There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!”

Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.

Pompeo dismissed their claim, “There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen.”

But while the Houthis claim credit, Iran denies all responsibility.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo’s charge, that the U.S. has simply replaced a policy of “maximum pressure” with a policy of “maximum deceit.” Tehran is calling us liars…

Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of war?

Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran’s oil refineries to “break the regime’s back,” while Sen. Rand Paul contends that “there’s no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran.”

Divided again: The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.

How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.

John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.

Be seeing you

Ponzi World (Over 3 Billion NOT Served): The Business of ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sen. Graham Wants to Bomb Iran in Response to Houthi Attack on Saudi Oil – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2019

But then Graham, as a neocon fellow traveler, is enthusiastically in favor of Israel’s wars in the Middle East. If it takes a few lies to get things moving, so be it.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/graham-wants-bomb-iran-response-houthi-attack-saudi-oil/5689229

By Kurt Nimmo

Following the early morning attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil processing facility—the largest oil processing plant in the world—and a similar drone attack at the Khurais oil field on Saturday, the neocon senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, has called for attacking Iran.

Although the Houthis claimed responsibility for the crippling attack, there is little evidence who is actually responsible. It is just as likely the Saudis did this to 1) ramp up hostilities against their arch enemy, Shia Iran, 2) jack up the price of oil, and 3) in the process make the impending Aramco IPO more lucrative.

In addition, the Saudis fear the end of the illegal war on the people of Yemen negotiated by the US:

Zerohedge notes:

According to Reuters reports the drone attacks will impact up to 5 million bpd of oil production, which suggests that the price of oil—already severely depressed by the recent news that John Bolton is out, making de-escalation with Iran far more likely—is set to soar when trading reopens late on Sunday, just what the upcoming Aramco IPO desperately needs, which in turn has prompted some to wonder if the “Yemen” attack on Saudi Arabia wasn’t in fact orchestrated by Saudi interests. (Emphasis mine.)

Meanwhile, the corporate media, as should be expected, is placing the blame indirectly on Iran. From the beginning of the Saudi campaign to bomb the daylights out of Yemen, creating one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory, the corporate media has stated as an indisputable fact the Houthis are an Iranian proxy doing the bidding of the mullahs in Tehran.

On the contrary, the Iranians have very little to do with supporting the Houthis, a fact rarely mentioned because it conflicts with the narrative that fallaciously states Iran is the most vicious terror state in the world (that designation is better suited for the United States and Israel).

Thomas Juneau, the assistant professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs and an analyst with Canada’s Department of National Defense, wrote for The Washington Post in 2016, “Tehran’s support for the Houthis is limited, and its influence in Yemen is marginal. It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Houthis are Iranian proxies.”

Iran’s assistance “remains limited and far from sufficient to make more than a marginal difference to the balance of forces in Yemen, a country awash with weapons. There is, therefore, no supporting evidence to the claim that Iran has bought itself any significant measure of influence over Houthi decision-making.”

Graham sits on a number of committees—including the Foreign Relations Committee, and he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs—so it really isn’t possible he doesn’t know the oft-claimed accusation Iran controls the Houthis is little more than war propaganda…

Be seeing you

The Federalist: Lindsey Graham: The Happiest Warmonger Alive

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Lindsey Graham’s Blank Check. Why a Defense Agreement With Israel Would Be a Disaster for Americans — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on August 23, 2019

Two world wars began because of unconditional pledges made by one country to come to assistance of another.

I am sure Israel would come to our aid if we were attacked by say…Saudi Arabia.

Remember the Liberty.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/08/22/lindsey-grahams-blank-check-why-a-defense-agreement-with-israel-would-disaster-for-americans/

Philip Giraldi

 

Two world wars began because of unconditional pledges made by one country to come to assistance of another. On July 5, 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany pledged his country’s complete support for whatever response Austria-Hungary would choose to make against Serbia after the June 28th assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Serbian nationalist during an official visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia. This fatal error went down in history as Germany’s carte blanche or “blank check,” assurance to Austria that led directly to WW I.

In September 1939, World War II began when Great Britain and France came to the assistance of Poland after the German Army invaded, fulfilling a “guarantee” made in March of that year. What was a regional war, and one that might have been resolved through diplomacy, became global.

One would think that after such commitments were assessed by historians as the immediate causes of two world wars, no one would ever consider going down that road again. But that would be reckoning without Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who has been calling for a “defense treaty” with Israel since last April. In his most recent foray, Graham announced late in July that he is seeking bipartisan support for providing “blank check” assurances to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is hoping to be able to push a complete defense treaty through the Senate by next year.

In making his several announcements on the subject, Graham has been acting as a front man for both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also for The Jewish Institute for the National Security of America (JINSA), which wrote the basic document that is being used to promote the treaty and then enlisted Graham to obtain congressional support.

Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement would be a treaty that would protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an “existential threat”. Citing Iran as an example, Graham said the pact would be an attempt to deter hostile neighbors like the Iranians who might use weapons of mass destruction against Israel. JINSA President Michael Makovsky elaborated on this, saying, “A mutual defense pact has a value in not only deterring but might also mitigate a retaliatory strike by an adversary of Israel, so it might mitigate an Iranian response (to an attack on its nuclear facilities).”

JINSA director of foreign policy Jonathan Ruhe added that “An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would not activate this pact, but a major Iranian retaliation might. – An Israeli unilateral attack is not what the treaty covers, but rather massive Iranian retaliation is what we are addressing.”

Israel has long been reluctant to enter into any actual treaty arrangement with the United States because it might limit its options and restrain its aggressive pattern of military incursions. In that regard, the Graham-JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as it effectively permits Israel to be interventionist with a guarantee that Washington will not seek to limit Netanyahu’s “options.” And, even though the treaty is reciprocal, there is no chance that Israel will ever be called upon to do anything to defend the United States, so it is as one-sided as most arrangements with the Jewish state tend to be.

As the agreement between the two countries would be a treaty ratified by the Senate, it would be much more difficult to scrap by subsequent administrations than was the Iran nuclear deal, which was an executive action by President Obama. And clearly the statements by Graham, Makovsky and Ruhe reveal this treaty would serve as a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran, should they opt to do so, while also serving as a red light to Tehran vis-à-vis an ironclad US commitment to “defend” Israel that would serve to discourage any serious Iranian retaliation. Given that dynamic, the treaty would be little more than a one-way security guarantee from Washington to Jerusalem.

Furthermore, in outlining what circumstances would trigger US intervention on Israel’s behalf, the JINSA/Graham document cites, inter alia, “the threat or use of weapons of mass destruction.” It also allows Netanyahu to call for assistance after defining as threatening any incident or development “that gives rise to an urgent request from the Government of Israel.” It appears then that Netanyahu could demand that the US attack Iran should he only perceive a threat, however vague that threat might in reality be.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming Iran is “three to five years” and “possibly weeks” away from a nuclear weapons capability since 1992 and pushing Washington to attack Iran so he obviously would welcome such a treaty for strategic reasons as well as to shore up his upcoming re-election bid. President Trump, with whom Graham has discussed how the agreement would work, has a similar interest in appearing strong for Israel to help his own campaign in 2020.

It is worth noting that in 2010 Netanyahu ordered the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to prepare to strike Iran but ‘Israel’s security chiefs refused: Gabi Ashkenazi, the head of the IDF, and Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad at the time, believed that Netanyahu and the Defense Minister Ehud Barak were trying to “steal a war” and the order was not carried out. The attacks were also rejected by two ministers, Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz, which left Netanyahu without the necessary majority to proceed.

Ashkenazi claimed in a 2012 interview about the episode that he was convinced that an attack would be have been a major strategic mistake. Meir Dagan said in 2012, after leaving his role as Mossad chief, that a strike would be “a stupid thing” as the entire region would undoubtedly be destabilized, requiring repeated Israeli and American interventions.

And there are other issues arising from a “defense treaty.” Defense means just that and treaties are generally designed to protect a country within its own borders. Israel has no defined borders as it is both expansionistic and illegally occupying Palestinian land, so the United States would in effect be obligated to defend space that Israel defines as its own. That could mean almost anything. Israel is currently bombing Syria almost daily even though it is not at war with Damascus. If Syria were to strike back and Graham’s treaty were in place, Washington would technically be obligated to come to Israel’s assistance. A similar situation prevails with Lebanon and there are also reports that Israel is bombing alleged Iranian supply lines in Iraq, where the US has 5,000 troops stationed.

The real problem is that the Trump administration is obsessed with regime change in Iran, but it has so far been unable to provoke Iran into starting a conflict. Graham’s proposed treaty just might be part of a White House plan to end-run Congress and public opinion by enabling Israel to start the desired war, whereupon the US would quickly follow in to “defend Israel,” obliged by treaty to do so. What could possibly go wrong? The correct answer is “everything.”

 

Be seeing you

USS Liberty

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

War Whores Scramble To Say Syria Attack Means Troops Must Remain – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on January 19, 2019

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/01/17/war-whores-scramble-to-say-syria-attack-means-troops-must-remain/

Author: Caitlin Johnstone

A suicide bombing in Manbij, Syria has reportedly killed 19 people including four Americans, two of whom were US soldiers and two of whom worked with the US military. ISIS, which has an extensive history of falsely claiming responsibility for attacks it had nothing to do with, has claimed responsibility for the attack. Despite the fact that ISIS would claim responsibility for a housewife stepping on a Lego block, and despite the complete absence of evidence that it had anything to do with the deadly explosion, all the usual cheerleaders of endless war are pointing to the Manbij suicide bombing and shrieking “See?? Trump said ISIS is defeated and it’s not!”

“ISIS is still a very real threat here,” CNN international corespondent Clarissa Ward told Jake Tapper from northern Syria. “And the real concern that we are hearing over and over again on the ground, Jake, is that when US troops withdraw, a power vacuum is created, and that only gives them more strength.”

Virulent Syria war pundit Charles Lister, who is notorious for praising Al Qaeda and is a senior fellowat the Gulf state-funded neoconservative think tank Middle East Institute, told AFP that this attack invalidates Donald Trump’s order last month to withdraw troops from Syria.

“Trump’s order was reckless and driven far more by domestic political concerns than it was by facts on the ground,” Lister said, adding, “To suggest ISIS is ‘defeated’ because it no longer controls territory is to fundamentally misunderstand how ISIS and similar organizations seek to operate.”

Former John McCain ventriloquism dummy Lindsey Graham pounced like a rat on a cheese doodle on the opportunity to call for continued US troop presence within hours of the attack, interrupting the confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee William Barr with an ejaculation about Trump’s Syria withdrawalRead the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Trump’s Neocons Reverse His Syria Withdrawal Plan

Posted by M. C. on January 8, 2019

Has he noticed recent polls showing that the majority of the American people agree with him? Why is he so intimidated by the neocons?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/january/07/trump-s-neocons-reverse-his-syria-withdrawal-plan/

written by ron paul

I’m starting to wonder whether President Trump has any power over US foreign policy at all. Many people believe that the US president is just a figurehead, with actual foreign policy firmly in the hands of the deep state. Trump’s latest dramatic U-turn on pulling troops from Syria certainly feeds such theories.

When President Trump announced just a couple of weeks ago that the US was removing its troops from Syria and possibly reducing troops from Afghanistan, the neocons, the media, the military-industrial complex, and the left-wing “never-Trump” people were livid. They were silent when President Obama made the horrible decision to overthrow Assad in Syria and sent weapons to jihadists to do so. They never said a word when billions of dollars were committed to this immoral and dangerous “regime change” policy. They weren’t interested in the rule of law when President Obama thumbed his nose at Congress and sent troops into Syria.

But when President Trump declared the obvious – that ISIS was effectively defeated and that we had no business being in Syria – these above groups in unison declared that actually bringing US troops home was a “gift to Russia.” Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »