Donald Trump’s first concrete decision as commander in chief was a major fiasco that killed nine children, eight women, and a U.S. soldier in a botched raid on al Qaeda in Yemen.
The operation — which Trump reportedly approved over dinner — also failed to catch its reported target and severely damaged a local clinic, mosque, and school.
It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump making the situation worse in Yemen, but he did.
Impoverished to begin with, Yemen is two years into a civil war that has killed 10,000 people and displaced millions. A U.S.-supplied bombing campaign has turned schools, hospitals, essential infrastructure, and ancient heritage sites into rubble. And a U.S.-backed blockade is preventing the trade of food and basic goods, starving a country that previously relied on imports for 90 percent of its food.
Photo: Mohammed Huwais/AFP/Getty Images
As a result, the United Nations this week declared that Yemen is on the brink of famine. Officials held a news conference Wednesday to announce that 19 million Yemenis — more than two-thirds of the country’s population — need some form of humanitarian assistance, 7.3 million people do not know where their next meal will come, and more than half of the country’s medical facilities have closed.
Jan Egeland, a former UN official and chair of the Norwegian Refugee Council, described the situation by saying “if bombs don’t kill you, a slow and painful death by starvation is now an increasing threat.”
Even so, the toll of Trump’s botched raid was so high that it drew criticism from the ousted government-in-exile of Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi — the party supported by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in Yemen’s civil war. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Hadi’s ministers had withdrawn their support for the U.S. to conduct ground missions in Yemen. The Pentagon and the Hadi government quickly denied the report, but Hadi’s foreign minister then said the government is conducting a “reassessment” of the raid.
Trump is evidently so sensitive to the criticism that he has tried to smother it by shamefully smearing critics and trying to stifle dissent.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer accused critics of being disrespectful of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, the Navy SEAL Trump sent to his death. “I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and does a disservice to the life of Chief Owens,” Spicer said.
On Thursday, after Sen. John McCain, R.-Ariz., described the raid as “a failure,” Trump — who repeatedly insisted it was a success — lashed out on Twitter, saying McCain’s criticism “emboldens the enemy” — likening congressional truth-telling to sedition.
And signs are that Yemen is in for more suffering at Trump’s hands. Trump’s Defense Department is reportedly considering a proposal to designate Yemen a formal battlefield in the war on terror, which would allow for an “intensified pace of operations, rather than one-off raids or drone strikes.”
Yemen is one of seven countries included in Trump’s immigration ban. In New York City, Yemeni-Americans have led strikes and large protests against the ban, which separates many from their extended families.
And the Washington Times reported on Wednesday that the administration is set to approve an arms transfer to Saudi Arabia that the Obama administration denied to them on human rights grounds.
The shipment contains hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons guidance systems that would allow Saudi Arabia to convert dumb bombs into precision missiles.
Photo: Fayez Nureldine/AFP/Getty Images
Targeted bombing is normally safer for civilians than indiscriminate bombing. In fact, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said during his confirmation hearing that the U.S. should provide Saudi Arabia with “better targeting intelligence” and “better targeting capability” in order to minimize “collateral damage.”
But the Obama administration, despite its reluctance to offend the Saudis, halted the guidance-systems sales after concluding that the Saudi-led coalition was targeting civilians deliberately.
Saudi Arabia began bombing Yemen in March 2015 after Houthi rebels overran the capital and deposed Hadi, the Saudi-backed leader, who now splits his time between the Saudi capital and southern Yemen. The U.S. has been a silent partner in the kingdom’s campaign against the Houthis, refueling warplanes, supplying targeting intelligence, and resupplying the coalition with more than $20 billion in weapons.
Since the beginning of their campaign, Saudi Arabia has destroyed vital civilian infrastructure including farms, fisheries, water infrastructure, roads, and hospitals. Other targeting decisions have sparked global outrage: the bombing of a children’s school and a school for the blind, and the October attack that turned a funeral at a community center into a “lake of blood.”
Congress has not yet been notified of the weapons shipment, and the Pentagon declined to comment on it.
The Saudi-led bombing campaign has also allowed al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate — the target of Trump’s botched raid — to grow exponentially in personnel and finances. According to State Department reports, the group quadrupled in size the year that Saudi Arabia started bombing. The same year, al Qaeda seized a prominent port city, which netted them an estimated $5 million a day off customs tariffs and smuggled goods. Al Qaeda in Yemen is also fighting the Houthis.
While Trump ramps up U.S. militarism in Yemen, Democrats have largely ignored the plight of the Yemenis. When a Yemeni refugee who had lost her father to Saudi bombing questioned Nancy Pelosi at a CNN town hall on January 31, Pelosi condemned Trump’s Muslim travel ban — but said nothing about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war. “Your family is suffering because our president is reckless” she said.
Pelosi to Yemeni refugee: "Your family is suffering because our president is reckless" https://t.co/qzremhe9fS https://t.co/UMhQJr7Ua2
— CNN (@CNN) February 1, 2017
Top Photo: A Yemeni man walks past flames rising from the ruins of buildings destroyed in a Saudi-led airstrike on Feb. 10, 2016 in Sanaa.
I do guess that voting for Hillary was the smart move after all.
The Navy Seal got what he deserved. Voluntarily signing up with an organization obsessed with killing and war has its risks, not to mention the morality of associating himself with such evil. The Seal accepted the risks. He received his just reward.
“White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer accused critics of being disrespectful of Chief Special Warfare Operator William “Ryan” Owens, the Navy SEAL Trump sent to his death. “I think anybody who undermines the success of that raid owes an apology and does a disservice to the life of Chief Owens,” Spicer said.”
I certainly don’t want to dishonor a murderous member of Trump’s personal army of career killers (LOVE the term “Special Warfare Operator”. It sounds like a title a fairy queen might bestow on a troll) .
The raid was a HUGE success! An intelligence-gathering coup! Because now the SEALs know that children are so much easier to kill than adults. I expect them to put that knowledge to explosive use to further the glorious aims of Trumpism.
You might as well trot out the “baby killers” epithet.
The correct term used by warriors is fun sized terrorists, not children. Your contemptuous rhetoric besmirches the honor of patriots defending somebody’s way of life.
AhmadiTrump was able to tap into the “alternative-fact” community – you have to give them credit.
These anti-whatever sentiments which are based on fiction, and whipped up by, among other things, years of shoddy stenography by so-called reporters, is not shocking at all.
If you want to kill people, you need to dehumanize them first. These polls are progress reports on dehumanizing over a billion people.
revelations ch11:
8: And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9: And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10: And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11: And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12: And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
13: And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
14: The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
15: And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
16: And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17: Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
18: And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
– and how shall those who destroy the earth be destroyed?
19: And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Greedy person are allowed to plunder the resources of life to enrich themselves for the pittance they return to those who assist them for mere bread. If that is a formula for long term success of the human species, then i must be an alien.
Trump is on line:
” It’s beyond the globalization of poverty. It’s not only the impoverishment of large sectors of the world population; it is precipitating people into total despair and it’s the destruction of the institutional fabric, the collapse of schools and hospitals which are closed down, the legal system disintegrating, borders are redefined.
Essentially this stage, which goes beyond impoverishment, is the transformation of countries into territories and we see it occurring in the Middle East. The objective for Iraq and Libya and Yemen is certainly to transform a country into a territory, and then you recolonize it. You’re in a very different environment to that which has prevailed until recently.”
Michel Chossudovsky
I know, it’s off-topic, but ya gotta forgive me, Alex.
Public Policy Polling: 51 percent of Trump voters say Bowling Green massacre justifies travel ban
Also disturbing:
Majorities In These 8 European Countries Would Back A Muslim Ban Like Trump’s
Also disturbing:
I read today where Putin is considering handing Snowden over as a “gift” to Trump who has already said he thinks Snowden should be executed.
It would be nice if The Intercept could research this and give everyone a realistic update.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
People tend to forget that Snowden thinks a few steps ahead whenever he can, and has a history of incredibly smart and brave people helping him even when he appears to be out of options. Plus the Deep State don’t particularly want any more attention given to him, as he is neither shy nor inarticulate about his grievances with the system.
“Special administrative measure.”
If they want to attempt that, I think they’ll only attract even more attention than otherwise. Particularly from people like Glenn Greenwald.
Plus, I think (hope) Snowden is more cunning than any establishment is aware.
There is also much of the Snowden trove as yet unreleased – which may be in reserve for such eventualities, especially if this sort of thing was considered ultimately inevitable. Which could amount to a reckoning of sorts, something Snowden doesn’t particularly seem to fear.
That sounds like typical BS fed anonymously to the media.
Poland: 70% want all Muslim immigration stopped.
Poland Muslim population as percentage of the whole: 0.1%
20,000 Muslims in a population of 39 million.
= = = = =
California, with about the same population, has more than ten times as many Muslims.
I find the figures alarming (an average of 55% agreement across the board), and the evident power of anti-Muslim propaganda extremely troubling. Europe is obviously also under the sway of applied hysteria. The U.K. is extremely used to all kinds of immigration, for example, but even its approval level is in the high 40s. I expected far more intelligence from Europe for some reason.
Indeed, exaggerating the size of internal Muslim populations seems to be widespread. from the article:
It seems that, despite resistance, sooner or later those kinds of bans will be in place across a number of countries. Beyond humanitarian concerns (it’s an evil measure for all kinds of reasons), the geopolitical consequences will be non-trivial once economically large countries are part of the ban.
I dug through the Chelsea Manning CableGate leaks at Wikipedia on Yemen for some background info on the Saudi assault on Yemen, here you go (although the leaks end in 2010, they’re still very informative):
SCENESETTER:
1) Any understanding of Yemen today requires understanding the role of Ali Abdullah Saleh over the past few decades; from the fall of the USSR to the Iraq Gulf War II (i.e. Gulf War I being the Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War II being the one overseen by GWH Bush, Gulf War III being the WMD bullshit disaster of 2003). See wikipedia page on Ali Abdullah Saleh for details.
2) With the outbreak of the rather unexpect Arab Spring in Tunisia, the Middle East and North African population clearly thought that their chance to replace authoritarian and apartheid regimes in the Middle East and North Africa had finally come. CIA entirely failed to predict this; complete blindsiding of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Serious threats to the continuity of Arab monarchies rapidly developed in Bahrain, etc. Egyptian military dictatorship under serious threat. Worries that this could lead to a Iranian Shah situation in Saudi Arabia. Covert action to support Arab monarchies immediately developed; Israeli and U.S. support delivered.
Ah, that would be the Hillary Clinton State Department request, wouldn’t it? Cable ID: 09STATE85632
3) The U.S. found a plausible Yemeni puppet leader around this time:
Unfortunately, this is another Hillary Clinton plan that didn’t work out so well:
“Hamid al-Ahmar is a Yemeni multimillionaire businessman and politician currently living in exile after fleeing Yemen during the Houthi takeover of Sana’a September 2014.”
4) In 2009, Iran’s role in Yemen was quite liimited:
5) The House of Saud attack on the Houthi tribal group began in early Nov 2009:
6) It appears the Saudis launched this war over fear of regional tribal rebellions that might threaten their own domestic grip on power. The consequences?
If you wish to review the Manning Cablegate search results on “Yemen” SECRET/NOFORN up to about Feb 2010, here’s the link:
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/?qproject=ps&qproject=cc&qproject=fp&qproject=ee&qproject=cg&q=&s=Yemen&qfoclass=SECRET%2F%2FNOFORN&qsort=tdesc#result
Oh and don’t worry about NSA surveillance; the mere fact that you’ve read this far means you’re already on the list. ;) And if this bothers you, just recall everyone who fought and died face down in the mud so you could have the right to read this, without anyone kicking down your door in the middle of the night.
That’s just outstanding, insightful and timely research, photo. Thx. much.
*I take it, then, US involvement in Yemen essentially revolved around Saudi ‘rich-man-burden’ paranoia over a few poor tribal Houthis straddling the border with Yemen potentially undermining SA cash flow … and their grip on veiled power. Figures.
ps. I ain’t worried about the NSA. I figure everyone @ NSA from a ‘vice’ Admiral on down is more like Snowden, anyway./
We are going to send a few trillion dollar bill to the Saudis for all the free protection services that we have thus far provided, and this will also help to renew our commitment to continue doing so. I think it is fair they reimburse us for our persevering efforts.
We are also working out safe zones in Saudi Arabia with air-conditioned tents in the deserts to house a million refugees till we get our construction companies like Bechtel and Halliburton to rebuild Syria, along with a few Russian demolition companies (Russians are good in demolition we’ve seen), and then we can send them all back where they all emerged, provided they are still alive and kicking by then. The air-conditioned tents will be useful to house Iranians that we project will need in the next phase.
Clicked on the link … just to make sure.
Sandor
“There is, in our own time, an absolute taboo among the corporate news media and the political class against anything to do with mentioning the strategic and economic reasons for war.” – Robert Newman’s History of Oil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpm_8v80hw
And while I’m sure ALex Emmons is a nice fellow, this article follows that taboo. You see, if the Houthi rebels succeed in establishing an independent government in Yemen, that bodes ill for the future of the House of Saud, a hereditary dictatorship (aka: monarchy) that refuses to cede political power to a parliamentary democracy. The U.S. fears a Saudi parliamentary democracy might be as hostile to U.S. interests as the Iranian parliamentary democracy (ruled over by the clerics, though) is. And then the Saudis might abandon the petrodollar prop-up deal they agreed to in the 1970s, something of a death knell.
This is a basic introduction to the “strategic and economic” reasons the United States is ardently assisting the Saudis in their war on Yemen, and has done so under Obama and will continue to do so under Trump, by all appearances. Why isn’t this an acceptable topic for discussion at the Intercept? I really couldn’t say. But the Saudis have a lot of money invested in everyone from Apple (Tim Cook just met with the Saudi prince, right?). And these kind of connections, are just too touchy. What if the Saudis decide to use their sovereign oil wealth to prop up Ebay? See for example India’s war on cash; that would certainly open the door to Ebay sales expansion, if everyone in India had to get a credit card.
http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO21Jan2017.php
Similar issues are involved in the U.S. decision under Obama to refuel Saudi jets on their way to destroy Yemen’s infrastructure; that Obama policy appears to be continued and expanded under Trump.
Yemenis being softened so the us can come in and rebuild.
wow. Trumpsters are just like Democrats! the gymnastics on display here, and right out of the gate . . . so you guys are still buying that line about draining the swamp and anti-interventionism, despite what’s happening right before your eyes? despite Trump’s and his cabinet’s own statements and actions?
jeezuz, this is getting old.
Well, at least we can sigh a slight breath of relief that Trump has said no to Elliot Abrams having the number two spot at The State Department even though Tillerson, Priebus and Kushner all wanted him.
Gee Alex how many articles have you penned criticizing Obama’s murderous ways? I guess if you’re a black Nobel prize winner and war criminal you’ll receive 1/10 the condemnation as one who is/was white. Amirite, Alex?
[p.s. mona and douggie, GFY]
gee A., can’t fool you, aye?
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/banned-by-119-countries-u-s-cluster-bombs-continue-to-orphan-yemeni-children/
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/06/after-8-years-of-expanding-them-obama-insists-that-presidential-war-powers-are-limited/
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/11/commander-in-chief-donald-trump-will-have-terrifying-powers-thanks-obama/
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/saudi-ambassador-to-the-u-s-vows-to-keep-hitting-yemen-no-matter-what/
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/u-s-enters-yemen-war-directly-for-the-first-time-with-attack-on-houthis/
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/photos-show-fragments-of-u-s-bombs-at-site-of-yemen-funeral-masssacre/
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/03/obama-worries-future-presidents-will-wage-perpetual-covert-drone-war/
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/19/weapons-makers-hold-lavish-lovefest-for-pentagon-official-who-manages-arms-sales/
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/10/fifteen-years-after-911-neverending-war/
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/11/lopsided-peace-talks-collapse-saudis-resume-yemen-bombing-and-u-s-sells-more-weapons/
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/29/where-are-the-drone-casualty-figures-the-white-house-promised-months-ago/
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/03/kerry-gives-saudis-a-big-pass-on-indiscriminate-bombing-of-civilians-in-yemen/
i got tired of cutting and pasting….
If he had penned those articles would you then agree with this one?
you don’t even have to have someone jfgi for you, it’s right here on this website.
https://theintercept.com/staff/alex-emmons/
NBC news tonight reported that Putin may send Ed Snowden as a gift to Trump????
That’s the primary Fake News outlet. They still haven’t reconciled themselves to their electoral “whitelash” as they perceive it.
Exactly. Putin will lose any credibility in the world and home if he send back Snowden to be chained. This are “intelligence sector” tricks to rattle people and anyone peddling this garbage is just a moron.
This is utter bullshit. There is a two month long history to this ever-evolving rumor that began with an off hand remark by a CIA officer who suggested that “Snowden would make a good gift” to the new president. Katie Couric just more recently gave that rumor life by asking Snowden about it as if posed an imminent danger to him. It was a softball question that allowed Snowden to paint himself as a whistleblowing patriot who is so dedicated to speaking truth that even the Ruskies are now threatened by him – a position that he says “vindicates” him. Whether, or not, Snowden is who claims to be, someone ought to tell him that his affected tones are irritating as hell. He speaks on every subject as if he is handing down mana to the ignorant masses. At best, he is a former contract operative from the NSA who used his privileged access to steal a shit load information from his employers(s). Prior to the theft of those documents, he would have had a problem getting random traffic on a twitter feed.
He is a whistleblowing patriot. Don’t let some bulls**t news story cloud your judgement. Of course he’s a former contract operative who used his privileged access to be that very whistleblower. That’s how you become a whistleblower.
I read today that within a year from now Snowden will be eligible for Russian citizenship (not that he wants it). But it seems that would throw a monkey wrench into the works.
Snowden is presently a cause celeb and he likes it. He has his girlfriend living with him and his family is only a phone call away. By his own admission he is comfortable and well off. Given that the US is endeavoring to undermine the emergence of an Iran/Soviet/Syrian/China economic bloc in the region, US/Russian relations are not likely to improve into the foreseeable future. Thus a state imposed change in Snowden’s status is highly unlikely. So, too, an application for Russian citizenship would not only undermine his claims that he is a US patriot, but he will be forced to swear allegiance to the Russian government.
If you still claim R or D, please pull your head out of your Trump.
Bush started it with Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama extended our wars, Trump will be no better. Our nation has no heart. We have not learned from Vietnam. Our soldiers no longer know what we are fighting for – neither our citizens. We don’t even call it war anymore. It’s “conflict” or “engagement”. We are to fear terrorism to the bone, while it doesn’t matter that many really die from inadequate healthcare or pollution. It has to stop. We can’t let this suffering go on. America stood for something after WWII. My parents called the military bombers during the Marshall plan the “raisin bombers” cause they dropped food and essentials for their survival. This would be the right plan for Yemen – not more bombs!
This reads as though all the Obama administration did “despite its reluctance to offend the Saudis” is halt the guidance-systems sales, not actually stop “refueling warplanes” and “resupplying the coalition with more than $20 billion in weapons.” And it reads as though Trump’s administration wants to make sure the targets are less indiscriminate, as you say:
I don’t approve of selling weapons or guidance-systems or refueling airplanes for the malevolent Saudis, so both administration’s behavior is reprehensible, but the way you’ve described this situation is that Trump’s administration is purportedly trying to minimize civilian casualties and Obama oddly refused to do so. And yet you describe this as ” Trump ramps up U.S. militarism in Yemen.”
On further reflection the U.S militarism is the raids, I presume, and not the weapons sales – which is indirect rather than direct militarism. Personally I consider all U.S. weapons sales to be U.S. militarism.
But am I reading the notion that Trump wants fewer civilian casualties than Obama did</em correctly? It seems a peculiar turn of events, particularly with the raids. Again, both administrations are being atrocious here, but you seem to be expressing this' guidance-systems' situation a little oddly.
Maisie, the article clearly states the belief that reportedly guided the Obama Administration: They concluded the Saudis were purposely targeting civilians and feared they would use precision weapons to do it.
Continuing to sell weapons that will then be used more indiscriminately doesn’t solve that problem!
Whether that assessment is so or not, the belief such weapons would be used to target civilians is the clearly stated reason set forth above.
It makes no fucking sense, Mona. And that is my point. If Trump is to be denounced for reportedly considering something, Obama can be denounced for not making any sense, and the article would be better if this was the case.
Well, you’re reading the claim by Rex Tillerson, in his confirmation hearings, that he wants less “collateral damage” correctly.
However, I wouldn’t anticipate that the guidance kits will have that effect. It’s much more likely that, having them, the Saudis will just be more likely to hit the villages, cafes, etc. they have been targeting, with a reduced chance that their bombs will blow up harmlessly in the desert.
But Obama still sold weapons that would be less discriminate.
And this is my point, and I believe it belongs in an article that makes comparisons between the two administrations and their approaches, especially one which has a headline and content that uncritically repeats Obama’s unsupportable view that guidance systems would be used to target civilians whereas more indiscriminate bombing would not,
I don’t think Obama’s view is actually unsupportable. The dispute that led to the guidance kit sale being halted was rooted in the former administration’s belief that the Saudis have been deliberately targeting civilian facilities.
And I can’t think of any reason to doubt that. Look at the history.
More indiscriminate bombing of populated areas does not solve that problem, in fact it bluntly encourages less caution, as I’ve seen no indication the Saudis have consequently toned down their Yemini bombing whatsoever.
Furthermore, for clarity’s sake:
Alternet
The devil is in the details, and just brushing this off uncritically as Emmons article does is insufficient.
Wait… are the Saudis committing war crimes or aren’t they? Should we be sending weapons to war criminals or shouldn’t we?
Anatomy of the Deep State
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/
*Also, if Houthis are fighting both AQAP and SA, as the article outlines, doesn’t that make the Houthis our friends (i.e. the enemy of my enemy is my friend)?
I don’t know about that phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as it’s the sort of thing that ends up with Hillary being my friend against Trump (if they are really enemies, which I frankly doubt) – plus I hate interventionism as it always seems to serve some corporate interest or other and costs money that could be spent in kindlier and more constructive ways. But I sense you’re just kidding around, anyway.
Thanks for the link. That was my introduction to the concept of the Deep State – everyone who’s unfamiliar with the concept should see that.
I’m not kidding around just … anyway!
Afaict, the entire justification for US force and all munitions in Yemen is AQAP.
*Is enemy of my enemy is my friend, or my enemy? is an ancient proverb which suggests that two opposing parties can or should work together against a common enemy or that they are also enemy’s. The earliest known expression of this concept is found in a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft, the Arthashastra, which dates to around the 4th century BC, while the first recorded use of the current English version came in 1884
ps. Hillary and Trump are definitely NOT enemies … hell, she danced at his wedding!
Well, I don’t believe the interventions or arms sales have much if anything to do with what the government claims, and I suspect you don’t either. The Yemen situation is as usual all about Full Spectrum Dominance for us via our allies with whom corporate interests overlap greatly.
I also don’t think the U.S wants our militant enemies overcome in any comprehensive way as that would mean no more need for the defense budget being nearly 700 billion dollars nor the surveillance state being so oppressive etc…
Appreciate the history lesson! I can see the phrase making some sense in situations involving sincere statesmen.
Doug, I just saw Ken Burns has made a Vietnam series.
I got shivers seeing some of the footage; it appears to have been remastered and the clarity was stunning.
I’m not sure if I want to see it.
Yeah, I’m not sure, either, but I’ll probably have to watch.
That vile war and its ramifications were the defining issues of my youth, so, much as I hate revisiting those matters. . .
Going to check it out, now.
I have friends who lost a child in Vietnam and they’re still asking WHY?
It’s a question we should all be asking ..WHY?
What are we doing this for?
And for whom?
i think the salient point is that the Trump admin has decided to resume sales of certain munitions to SA.
There has been apparently just one arms sale that didn’t go through, and Ben Norton describes it thusly:
Alternet
Political theater is not meaningful, but usually merely shallow optics.
I’m not posting this as a joining in of the back and forth over the last dozen or so comments from you all, I’m posting it because it addresses the subject between Obama and Trump in regards to past, present and future military actions that we — many of us — find repulsive.
It’s a five minute or so video of Glenn in an interview at TYT Politics in the last day or so speaking directly about that subject.
Thanks! I had missed that one, somehow. I’ll have to watch it later, as it’s too noisy here, but I’m sure it’s great.
wait, what? now you’re saying the whole thing is irrelevant?
wtf, there is no high ground here. why would you try to defend Trump when he’s apparently announced his intentions?
I’m not defending Trump or Obama. I’m opposed to corporate-interest interventionism and arms sales, as well as the military-industrial complex that controlled Obama and now controls Trump. I have no idea why you would think otherwise.
If Saudis and Yemenis don’t fight and buy our weapons then we need other folks to buy our weapons and fight, which isn’t a very healthy proposition. So it is quite desirable that Saudis and Yemenis continue to do their Aliakbars and fight and kill each other so that it solves the problem once and for all regarding the granting of visas that our judges seem to be so concerned with.
This is a domestic fight between people of the same religion with two different popes. Why should we mediate?
Wonderful display of not knowing what you’re talking about. Took me a while, but okay, ha ha. I guess that the name ‘General Hercules’ should’ve alerted me to a laughable parody of male insecurity, but in my opinion you do tend to go overboard with realism.
Wait, is this the guy who said a lot of stuff about “stupid foreign wars” that he was going to stop? Not even a month in, and Yemen will be declared a “battlefield”. Bombs away! And the cheering (by his fans) and indifference (the rest) will go on. It seems the national security apparatus has grabbed the newbie by the scruff of the neck far sooner than usual.
Sad story.
Can you point me to anything you wrote criticizing Obama when he was flaming this fire?
You have described the grim situation in Yemen, and then you take pains to ascribe all this to President Trump instead of President Obama who has created it. In fact, you go on to emphasize that the Obama Administration went to great lengths to prevent it. President Trump has been at his job for just a little over two weeks and already you see two years of catastrophe due to his actions.
Had I written such a lousy piece what would have been your comment?
Very well stated objection.
Donald Trump just slaughtered a bunch of human beings in Yemen, and “is reportedly considering a proposal to designate Yemen a formal battlefield in the war on terror, which would allow for an ‘intensified pace of operations, rather than one-off raids or drone strikes.'”
The man is drenched in blood.
Yes, “reportedly considering.”
He was reportedly considering Elliot Abrams for the State dept., too, but it didn’t happen. We should only go on what actually happens to speak of bloodshed.
I loathe Trump, but can you explain why Obama not wanting guidance systems but still greenlighting weapons sales makes Trump worse for wanting to include the guidance systems?
The word “considering” means exactly that. And Trump was, in fact, considering Abrams. Just as:
As for this:
This isn’t a game of “better or worse.” It is, in fact, not a game of any sort. According to the above piece, Obama believed the Saudis were purposely targeting civilians and might employ precision weapons toward that end. I have no opinion as to whether that is true, but is the reason given.
During Bush 43 Republicans rallied around whatever that man did, because it was their Dear Leader doing it. Enter Barrack Obama, and Democrats would countenance no criticism of the Holy One and defend any depravity at all.
Now, it’s Leader Trump, and we see his acolytes spewing rotted (irrelevant) apologia about his time in office. These Trumpers are every bit as mindless and gross as the Bushbots and Obama-worshipers who preceded them.
So, in other words, you don’t know!
My ‘comparisons” between the two have been elucidated – they’re both reprehensible. It should be clear I’m not playing any kind of game, but the impression of this article and its headline is that Trump is worse – bizarrely for not wanting more indiscriminate targeting.
You used the “reportedly considering” in connection with having blood on his hands. He does have blood on his hands, but not for what he’s reportedly considering. Hence, my correction.
I’m in no way siding with Trump fans, as I’d hoped I’d made clear. I’m simply addressing a poorly made point in the article that stands out as improperly written – but hopefully not deliberately vague.
No, I do, in fact, know. Donald Trump was considering Abrams, and CENTCOM is “reportedly considering a proposal to designate Yemen a formal battlefield in the war on terror, which would allow for an ‘intensified pace of operations, rather than one-off raids or drone strikes.’”
That’s a very uncharitable reading. I’m not a moron, Maisie. Donald Trump has blood on his hands, but not for anything merely under consideration. But after a vicious slaughter, to be considering escalating in that manner is an indication of extensive depravity. Such an addition to coverage of the recent slaughter in Yemen is entirely relevant and proper.
There is no such “poorly made point” in the article, written “improperly” or otherwise.
No, you don’t know. There is no certainty in what is merely being considered. All you know is what is considered, which puts blood nowhere unless it is realized as an actual event.
You’re just being huffy and defending an Intercept article that is in one place poorly written, as well as crossly defending your poor choice of words.
Yemen doesn’t have any oil nor any other viable resource. As a nation they are pretty poor. The only reason that the Saudis and Iranians are fighting their proxy war there is because Iran wants to have a perpetual nuisance created at the Saudi border. We have no interest in this war, and probably we will be better off to have the Saudis reined in, sort of. So it’s really ridiculous to come up with concocted “reportedly considering” events as if they are facts that have occurred, and for which you now have the liberty to hang someone. The Ninth Circuit will be honored to grace the presence of your Highness.
Those pretty blue letters in Emmons’ story? Those are called links. One of them goes to a Guardian article which reports:
This is an inscrutable non sequitur:
I stopped reading The Guardian soon after Glenn Greenwald got disgusted with it and left. In fact, he wrote a scathing denunciation of what was once a credible source of information. Funny that one of his fans should now refer to it as a source of anything but fake news.
No, in fact all Emmons says (weirdly) is that Obama didn’t want the bombing to be assisted by guidance systems, which is hardly preventing anything but greater accuracy.
And no, this doesn’t excuse Trump.
We all know how low Obama bowed before the Saudi King to pay his obeisance to the head of the Muslim church. It was a disgrace to our nation. It was also a disgrace that he did not include the Saudis along with their servants, the Pakis, in the list of countries with terror links that he prepared for his successor.
We are going to correct that list and issue a fresh order that will state clearly that no one is to discriminate against religion, but we will carry out extreme vetting and have each visa approval from those nine countries finally signed off at the White House. Hopefully, it may not be necessary to sign off any approval as the ban is temporary and time for the ban will be over by the time it gets to its final destination where it may hibernate for some time safe from the purview of the interfering judicial masquerade.
Trump shows no signs of not being a submissive to Israel or Saudi Arabia. Plus he seems to love the Pakistanis, so you may be disappointed.
Donald Trump Had the Trumpiest Phone Call With Pakistan’s Prime Minister
Well, he can attribute some elements of his victory to a Paki called Huma Abedin and her philandering spouse, so naturally he should feel grateful.
He says all those he’s met are exceptional, which should surprise racists like you.
It seems you are in the habit of gathering a lot of news from Paki sources. Do you think it’s a good and wise habit? It’s quite possible that the interpreter in Abbottabad was relating his own version of what President Trump was saying to get a raise and save his own neck.
No, I think Trump actually said it, and my “source” in this instance is Time magazine. Trump has issued no challenge to the record, and if he was an out-and-out pig-ignorant racist dingbat like you I’m sure he would have done.
“I think Trump actually said it” -versus- “Trump has issued no challenge to the record” … Same thing, sweetheart? Nothing absurd in stitching together these two contradictory assertions?
“my “source” in this instance is Time magazine” – God bless you, at least you don’t depend on CNN!
I think Trump actually said it because Trump has issued no challenge to the record.
Nothing absurd about that.
I don’t depend on CNN or Time magazine, I was pointing out that my source was the establishment itself, not an unverified Pakistani account as you implied. Its truth exists primarily because there has been no correction issued by Trump, who is now part of the establishment itself.
I notice you don’t deny being an out-and-out pig-ignorant racist dingbat.
It was a very sweet distraction from you to comment on your perceptions of my inclinations when we are discussing events that are shaping the world. I leave it to your imaginations to dream up more such wonderful things about me in the coming days.
Scroll up, and read that you had written ” ….. according to a readout provided by the Pakistani government…” . Over a few posts you change your story and say Trump said this. That’s how you debate?
I’m saying that Trump said what Time magazine reported he did.
Your addled brain has a hard time following the English language, evidently.
And I’m not debating with you, I’m batting you around like a cat-toy, you racist twit.
“I’m saying that Trump said what Time magazine reported he did.”
Therein lies the problem. It was you who mentioned that Time magazine was quoting a Paki government readout. It’s a prime example of circular fake news becoming credible to some gullible folks after a few revolutions.
No, Trump called up to abuse and threaten that Paki fellow after Obama mentioned to him in private that they were out fooling everybody. Remember the O’Reilly interview before the Superbowl? Trump refused to mention the name of the country, but judging from the fact that Obama never once went to Pakistan during his entire tenure indicates the kind of trust we have for those blokes. Now you may ask why Trump did not react to the fake Paki news. You think anyone in their senses expect the Pakis to tell the truth? And he doesn’t have any time to read those newspapers since they always write in the wrong direction anyway.
Love you for all your naughty characterization for my love for humanity.
This indicates you’re actually a parody account.
I admit this is a relief, as it is upsetting that someone could be not just as ill-informed but as belligerently, willfully disgusting as you appear! I truly appreciate your giving the game away here, but please consider refining your craft to the extraordinarily clever level of ‘Benito Mussolini,’ who often posts here. This is a high bar, admittedly, but you won’t turn so many stomachs or attract unwanted (?) ire if the satire is little more obvious.
But I see where Trump is refusing all calls/outreach from the Palestinian leadership.
Trump seems (like all politicians) submissive to the Deep State’s need for Israel’s good will.
Try this: We’re surrounded folks!! There’s the Asians! The Muslims! The Mexicans maybe the Canadians I don’t know Only I can save you!
Anyone you know
You are probably in LA in such august company. Good luck!
Let me guess. You are in an East Coast country club with a big fat cigar in your mouth. Slightly overweight. Full of yourself. Expounding on shit you heard on Fox News while an immigrant serves your whiskey.
Your imagination is good and cheerful. Do you write for New York Times in your spare times?
“Had I written such a lousy piece what would have been your comment?”
Fired!!!!!!
I seriously doubt it.
Maybe people would start listening if journalism was better than this. Throwing in clickbait phrases like this make me sad. You’ve pointed out the writer, Alex, lying, serving his own bias, and making things worse. Even if Trump’s actions will actually help Saudis target civilians I seriously doubt that is what Trump intends. And there is absolutely no proof of it.
Welcome to the future.
Ashes and shit, soaked in blood.
Hey Alex,
Did the Intercept bother to check and see if the purported bio of the “Yemeni refugee” was true? It was not to long ago that we were hearing phony first-hand accounts of babies-thrown-from-incubators in the run-up to war on NBC Nightline. Yet the stories proved to be pure Kuwaiti funded propaganda that was embraced by the political right. Why are the words of this alleged war victim any less subject to journalistic scrutiny? Is it beneath Pelosi and the DNC to stage such a photo-op? Or, does the purported first hand accounts of this “Yemeni refuge” too closely align with the Intercept’s own aims in its ongoing pro-immigration / anti-Trump campaign to warrant scrutiny?
Why the Dark Secrets of the First Gulf War Are Still Haunting Us
https://rogerhollander.wordpress.com/tag/kuwait/
Of course you can’t know for sure, but there’s a key difference in parsimony. The Gulf War claim was an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. A Yemeni claiming his village was bombed is not extraordinary. We know for a fact it happens on a regular basis.
Nice try. This is the left uncritically embracing the disingenuous, politically driven, anti-Trump sentiments of Pelosi who, for years, has been a mouthpiece of the war-mongering establishment that. She has wholeheartedly embraced the Bush doctrine as a mean to create the very conditions that predictably result in the forced migration of Muslims (cheap labor) from their homelands.
Ir is not merely a “nice try. What Jose wrote is entirely accurate. Nothing you’ve countered undermines it.
Bizarre non sequiturs about Nancy Pelosi certainly do not do so.
If a known chronic liar tells me that she is lying, should I believe her.
Pelosi’s truthfulness is not at issue in this discussion. The above article says this, my emphasis:
Nancy Pelosi has not been highly regarded by most writers at this site, or most long-time commenters.
The liar I was referring to was you Mona… your opinions have no weight!!
Karl thinks I like Nancy Pelosi. These new Intercept trolls are easy, but there’s quite a few of them.
Well, if it was staged they did a bad job of it. The woman referred to her dad dying from lack of medicine due to “the siege”, presumably meaning the blockade which happened under Obama. And Pelosi’s response in general sucked for anyone aware of anything. She also repeatedly referenced God and Christianity for some reason. If this were scripted I think someone more competent would’ve written her response. Instead seemed pretty standard Pelosi bullshit.
Also, just who are you referring to as “the left”? Surely not Alex Emmons, who noted of that video/criticized Pelosi’s response with: “but said nothing about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war.”
So the opposite of “uncritically embracing”
The photo-op was an opportunity for the leadership of the democratic party to garner anti-Trump support by speaking to the evils of implementing immigration policies that were only made possible by the very laws which they enacted and implemented under Obama. The author’s inclusion of Pelosi’s grandstanding did nothing in the way of painting her level of complicity in creating the very conditions that are predictably resulting in a “refugee crisis” within Yemen. Rather she – and, by extension, the DNC – are painted as being at least sympathetic to the plight of Yemenis and in their stated political opposition to Trump’s temporary suspension of immigration from that country. Yet, none of this was addresed by the author. Rather, he chose to only focus on the fact that “Pelosi said nothing about U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war” as if she and the DNC were/are not the co-progenitors and facilitators of that policy. Although America’s foreign policy is clearly duopolistic in nature, each party attempts to frame policy debate and “enduing public discourse on matters of national concern” as if there are significant ideological differences between the parties. AGAIN, the intended outcome of of US foreign policy is to create conditions that make it necessary for Muslim’s to abandon their homelands. The relocation of Muslims from those Muslims-majority countries that have been targeted for regime change by the west’s neoliberal elites is essential to creating conditions whereby the transnational flow of capital investments into a particular region are not at risk of being forfeited. So too, the forced flow of Muslims into western countries provides a steady stream of cheap labor for the same elites. And how does the progressive left respond? It predictably facilitates those very policies out of a misguided sense that forced migration is merely the unfortunate byproduct of war. The herding of cheap human labor from targeted Muslim countries is an intended consequence of hostilities and is therefore no different that the transatlantic slave trade. Get a fuckin clue!!!
I have a fucking clue. I just think if this was a photo op it was very poorly done. It allows too much exposure into your point that both parties enjoy fucking over the ME while not actually giving a shit about ME human casualties. If a photo op/fake Yemeni I think it would have been more on point (i.e. only referring to a couple weeks of Trump shit; rather than also referring to 8 years of Obama/Democrat shit.
There was some hope that, with Trump, the relationship between the Saudi monarchy and the US would sour. Realistically, you can only expect the worst from Trump. Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia is the wealthiest one. Predicting the current outcome is a no brainer.
Yemen is one of the seven countries barred from entry to the U.S., and it’s a popular policy: “by a 51/23 margin Trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump’s immigration policy is needed.”
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/americans-now-evenly-divided-on-impeaching-trump.html
What? You never heard of the Bowling Green Massacre?
“What? You never heard of the Bowling Green Massacre?”
You can’t hear with your head blown off!
“…Targeted bombing is normally safer for civilians than indiscriminate bombing….”
Welcome to your world…
Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Think to yourself: ” Am I a civilian?… Do I know anyone who is a civilian? …
What civilian is next?…
Who is a civilian?
In a world where President Obama assumed the right to kill anyone anywhere without the benefit of due process of law, there is no such thing as a civilian. I marvel at the fact that 90 percent of American blacks still hold a favorable opinion of Obama. Likewise, I am confounded by the fact that “whites” and “Christians” are be singled out by anti-establishment, violence prone, chic, wannabe radicals for the actions of a wholly secular government that, when even headed up by a black man, further embraces mass murder as a morally acceptable tool of political transformation.
+1
Is there a possibility for the United States to stay the fuck home for awhile?
Just to see what happens? And if the people it’s supposedly trying “to save” are better off?
Come to think of it..it doesn’t often try that. When over one quarter of every tax dollar goes to the military, it would certainly help the economy. Or is the economy in fact based on constant conflict?
Seriously. They should try it for a couple years to see how it turns out. No CIA tricks or anything. A lot of governments would fall and it would be messy for a while, but generally speaking, most of the world would be partying the whole time and self-determination would win in the end.
I’m glad you agree. To those who don’t name somewhere that has asked the United States to come into their country and save them I’m not talking about corrupt dictators supported by the U.S. government ordinary people.
To those who can’t do it, here’s how it has played out: At the conclusion of the Second World War polticians, and the corporations who support them, decided that war was pretty damn good business. Other people’s pain..was their gain they could travel the planet and, with the help of the U.S. military, take whatever resources they wanted. And the best part? The costs would be picked up with young American lives AND the American taxpayer. Even better ..they could disguise it. As bringing “needed democracy”.
It was going on before. It’s going on now. To those who support using your childrens’ lives ..and your money.. like this. Get your head out of your ass.
i like it. if only. i have a 16 year old son. I and most of my friends will go to great lengths to not send our children to die for the industrial military complex. but as a friend tells me, they figured out awhile back the don’t need to draft white educated middle class and up when they can keep an endless supply of kids from under served communities who have no other options. Please make it stop.
Given how we know the Saudis funded 9/11, why would we want to aid them?
OIL, can you be that naive?
Did this so called “journalist” used “McCain” and “truth teller” in the same sentence? The raid was planned by Military under Obama, so what in hell Trump could have done. Those raids were happening all the time under the bustard Obama and media was fine with that, but now the Yemeni lives matter for some reason. I know that Intercept might have stated this before, but the whole article blaming Trump is dishonest and misleading. McCain and Obama are the scam who made this mess for years and they should be reminded of this every time they speak.
Obama is responsible for those attacks that occurred under his administration.
Trump is responsible for the attack that took place at his order, under his administration.
who has suggested otherwise?
I agree with you, what I am saying is that the tone of the article is shock and such like this hasn’t been happening for years. On top of it he is quoting absolutely dishonest people as “truth tellers”. I am calling the journos bias and incompetent reporting and asking Intercept editors to be more objective.
where did Emmons express shock? i don’t see that at all.
i believe the article specifically refers to the Obama admin’s participation in the hostilities in Yemen.
further, the reference to McCain didn’t offer him a title, but referred to something he stated that is true, which he was then castigated for.
??
Emmons expressed no shock. Intercept writers are not only aware of Obama’s crimes against Muslims, they have written extensively about them and still do. As you said, Trump properly is made to own his own crimes.
Moreover, this site, in general, rejects the “objectivity” model of journalism, also known as The View From Nowhere (which does not exist).
perhaps that response is directed at orez….
Well, my intent was to agree with you.
i see. my mistake, i though you were conflating orez’z posts with mine.
:-)
I am not following the last part of your statement or rather I am not 100% sure. Are you implying that “clearly objectivity doesn’t exist so why bother”? They are journalist and they should strive for objectivity and reporting facts. I am not asking for perfection, but it will be easier for a person with integrity to be objective and the lack of objectivity speaks of lack of integrity. The biased tone of these article speaks of speaks of lack of integrity. Maybe that is good enough for you, but it is not for me and I will call them out on it. Any objective person can see that realistically Trump had no other choice but to approve the raid and it’s failing of the raid shouldn’t be on his shoulders only. Keep him accountable, but keep perspective. Anything McCain is saying is for war mongering cases, so it should be looked with a lot of skepticism and not venerated when it serves narrative. Any idiot can see that 9 killed children is a sign of failed raid, shit 1 kid is too much in my eyes, so that scam’s comment should place no value on it. On the contrary when scam like McCain starts caring for Yemeni lives, you need worry about ulterior motives and not give him platform to play “truth teller”
No.
This site does not do “objective” journalism. It works hard to be factually accurate, but does not pursue “objectivity.”
Rather, this site is in the activist journalist tradition.
wait . . . you’re arguing from the perspective that Trump has been hard done-by?
really?
Exactly. I don’t believe reporters are giving him fare coverage. The raid was failure, however it needs to be stressed that it was prepared by Army way before Trump time. As a man in charge he needs to take the blame, but some fairness is expected, I think. Trump went against the hated establishment and won. He won against war criminal Hilary and Obama and his repub brethren and for that he deserves some trust. The whole negativity is establishment trying to undercut him before he has chance to do some changes. I disagree with Trumps many choices and decisions, but I want him to follow on his promises to just open peoples eyes. Lets remember that the guy is going all out on all of his campaign promises so far, which is more then the politicians done in the past 20 years. We have had war criminals in charge of this country the past 16 years, so how bad can he be?
you keep imputing tone or intent without any basis, or even an attempt at showing one.
McCain called the raid a failure.
it
was
a
failure.
You should go read how The Intercept covered, say, the Kunduz hospital bombing.
At ease, Colonel.
Some policy aspects of warfare are not disclosed at your rank.
Yeah? What rank does one need to reach before the policy objectives of shooting little girls through the neck and blowing civilian villages to bits is revealed?
You probably know better than most folks do that our brave soldiers, who also happen to protect you and all your family and friends, Mona included, will never carry out such a dastardly criminal act knowingly and with intent even if they are commanded to do so. It is really a sad state of affairs that in order to denigrate a President you dislike you have no hesitation in assigning criminal behavior to our uniformed soldiers. Shame on you! Now man up and apologize to all those who risk their lives to protect you from harm.
the “behavior” in question persists across administrations, across generations. and it speaks for itself.
Very true, Colonel. We have a morality that is steeped in a tradition of culture and history of liberty that persists over generations. Unfortunately, these days we are seeing too many uninvited guests whose only aim in life is to import their own immoralities, failing which get vengeful. We all have to be careful, and I hope you are doing your bit. Some fellows like this Salzmann here appear to be very ungrateful to us for their slimy existence, but nevertheless we will persist.
ah, the old i know you are but what am i evasion.
not to worry, i’m sure no one else noticed.
they hate us for our freedom.
Stop supporting the Jewish theft of Palestine, stop supporting the Saudi’s, stop murdering millions of Muslims, stop supporting right wing dictators all over the world, stop providing arms and the means of destruction to evil conservatives. We…America and our support for conservatism is the root cause of most of the strife in the world.
We’re not that special. Plenty of strife occurs in the world without US involvement. But how do you see this as a “liberal” vs “conservative” issue? A conservative in Iran or Saudi Arabia is not united by ideology with a US conservative. Conservatism isn’t responsible for our disastrous invasion of Iraq. Israel is. And its amen corner in the US, for example, Thomas “Cakewalk” Friedman of the New York Times.
maybe not “conservatism,” but certainly Conservatives and neoconservatism are indeed responsible.
Mr. Nelsen is literally a white supremacist. His kind of conservative would be the racist, nativist paleo-cons like American Renaissance or the late Thomas Fleming. (I’d add a link about AR and Fleming but then this wouldn’t post.)
Certainly the Israel Lobby was for the Iraq war, but so were garden variety warmongers such as Cheney and Manichean religious zealots like George W. Bush.
yes. thank you.
Dougmona, are you still smarting from the beating I gave you when I called you on your lies regarding Trump’s refugee ban and then humiliated you by making you run away from defending your lying position?
You were particularly incensed that I identified the “both” of you as a Jewish immigration attorney. I get it. Immigration lawyers are the most loathsome people in the country–a pack of sniveling liars, traitors, and greed rats –who wouldn’t try to keep it a secret? And given the Jewish reputation for dishonesty, I understand your reluctance to have the lies you tell here exposed as lies. And I even understand the benefit denying your Jewish identity provides to your ability to lie successfully.
But, all that understanding will do you know good. I’m still going to call you out for your lies.
I was responding to
Neocons are responsible for the Iraqi invasion, though I doubt Thomas “Cakewalk” Friedman would consider himself a neocon. There were a few so-called conservatives duped into buying the bogus Mossad-manufactured WMD intelligence the neocons were feeding them (Colin Powell, GWB, etc.), but the Iraqi invasion was the deformed and putrid offspring of American neocon, or American-Israeli dual citizen neocon, efforts.
Eliot Cohen
Scooter Libby
Doug Feith
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Carl Levin
It would be a glorious day to see them hang, AIPAC shut down, and its directors, jailed.
The Iraqi invasion was an example of what Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was talking about when he said to Shimon Peres on March 25, 2001 “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
PNAC had plenty of non-Jewish members as well such as Bolton and Rumsfeld. Your exclusive focus is odd.
It would be odd if Mr. Nelsen were not the founder of one group that was cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report on multiple occasions.
Yes, the despicable $PLC has used my name to shake down rich frightened elderly Jews. So what?
You call me an anti-Semite for noticing, for example, the preponderance of Jews in the media. All that means is I am not a coward. I say what I see.
I say what the truth looks like to me. You lie, as I proved the first day posting here.
I post under my real name. You post under two pseudonyms.
I say what I do and have my website craignelsen.com up and running. You hide what you do.
So you, or the charlatans at the $PLC, calling me an anti-Semite means squat to me. And among people whose opinions I respect, such name-calling counts as status points.
I said nothing about PNAC. The Mossad stuff came through Cheney’s office i.e., Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc.
The cause of war in 2003 was Jewish/Israeli derived.
Did non-Jews play a role? Yes.
Did all Jews play a role? No.
Are Jews primarily responsible for the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Yes.
and the Freemasons, can’t forget the Freemasons.
i always wanted to be a Shriner. the little cars are kinda lame, but i would totally rock a fez.
and American Conservatives walked that path right along with the rest of them.
as they do today, including the neo-neoconservatives within the Democrat Party, who are the presumptive inheritors of both conservatism and Conservatism in the US.
Sure, but it’s pretty clear US intervention exacerbates it to a substantial degree. A couple cases in point: Central America in the 70s and 80s, and the MENA region after Iraq.
I agree. The world would be a better place had Charles Lindberg prevailed and we sat WWII out.
And Nancy Pelosi is a peach isn’t she? My representative!
Here is an article that explains why the Trump Administration is likely to continue to back the Saudi regime:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/01/saudi-arabia-and-trump-administration.html
Not surprisingly, thanks to lobbying and connections to insiders, in Washington it’s often profits before geopolitics.