Finally, the once-war loving Ann Coulter, who stood firm behind Bush’s war crimes in Iraq, calling them “magnificent,” is becoming so much more paleolibertarian, recognizing that the strict role of government in the American republic, RIP, is to do the only thing government might be capable of doing and is certainly empowered to do constitutionally: Keep the barbarians out. When she’s good, Ms. Coulter is so very-very good (that’s why she’s being kept off the idiot’s lantern; Coulter would finish Marco Rubio off. And Fox News is pushing Marco Robber O).
“WHEN THE THIRD WORLD ATTACKS!”:
Republicans think the way to get tough is to go to war in Syria.
Marco Rubio gives macho speeches about a military attack on ISIS—“either they win or we win!”—to distract from the fact that his immigration bill would have massively increased the number of needy immigrants pouring into our country—including Muslim refugees.
So Rubio’s plan for Middle East stability is to start more wars and then import all the displaced terrorists into the United States. Brilliant!
Not to be a stickler, but ISIS didn’t slaughter 3,000 Americans on 9/11, blow up the Boston Marathon, murder thirteen Americans at Fort Hood, or open fire on a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
ISIS didn’t kill Kate Steinle, commit mass murder on the Long Island Railroad, introduce Palo Mayombe and Santeria to our country, bring slaves and concubines from India to San Francisco, or burn down hundreds of acres of national parks to evade border agents.
ISIS doesn’t import 90 percent of the illegal drugs that kill thousands of Americans every year, steal billions of dollars from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, or rape little girls, nuns and dogs in our country.
Glad Ms. Coulter has awoken to “The Root Causes Rot,” also the title of Chapter 5 in “Into The Cannibal’s Pot” (2011). Look inside.
Neoconservative Marco Rubio is right about Democrat candidates having a Super PAC all their own in mainstream media.
But so does he. Fox News, which leans mainstream Republican, is also trending toward Rubio as their 2016 Republican presidential nominee. Sean Hannity is Rubio’s biggest booster, chiefly because, as far as I can tell, Rubio sounds fluent, says he’ll put Putin in his place, and has a both/and approach to Assad: No need to choose Assad over ISIS, says Rubio; eliminate both.
More war is just what the doctor ordered for flush-with funds America, whose working-class whites are dying off in middle-age. We’ve all seen men like this one in our communities:
A recent softball conversation Gretta van Susteren conducted with fast talker Rubio was particularly cringe-making, during which Rubio used a lot of hedge words.
There’s no decisive speech in Rubio’s vocabulary to speak of; no principled passion, just naked ambition. Rubio greases his speech with bureaucratic babble about overhauling “bad” practices, instituting “systemic reforms,” “modernizing” and trailblazing those well-trodden “paths” to non-amnesty, but only as soon as those borders without walls become a reality.
You have pet whisperers—in our household it’s two parrot whisperers—and you have a war whisperer, that’s Garry Kasparov. The first is a person who “claims to communicate psychically with animals,” but simply uses kindness and patience to induce happiness, and hence compliance, in our companion pets. The second is a clever neoconservative-minded globalist, who ingratiates himself on stupid American media and political elites who share his mindset, and whispers sweet nothings in these asses’ ears, for the opportunistic purpose of bending their will to his.
One war whisperer is chess master Garry Kasparov convincing MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, today, that warring with Putin is a good for America. Another was Judith Miller’s old flame, Ahmad Chalabi, who was an Iraqi conman who fed the New York Times’ mindless Miller, now with Fox News, with misinformation that helped make the war on Iraq happen.
UPDATE: “Ahmed Chalabi died of a heart attack in Baghdad on Tuesday aged 71.” Had he not invited America to invade Iraq, he might have received better medical care. Iraq was quite civilized BB (Before Bush). In Canada we had Iraqi neighbors, who were most certainly NOT refugees.
Patrick Cockburn’s piece about the man is nicely nuanced:
… The accusation made against Chalabi after 2003 was that he had lured the US and its allies into a disastrous invasion of Iraq by fabricating or manipulating evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In time, he became the scapegoat for politicians and journalists looking for somebody else to blame for their own failures and falsehoods.
The charge seemed to me to be absurd because it is the business of the political exile to pass on damaging information, true or false, about the government he or she is trying to overthrow. Only the laziest or most naïve of journalists should have imagined that information put their way by Chalabi – or any other Iraqi exile – was non-partisan. …
“Master Sergeant Wheeler, 39, a father of four who was thinking of retiring from the Army, became the first American in four years to die.” (NYT) What did this good man die for? He died to “rescue” “20 Iraqi security forces, some local residents and apparently some militants whom the Islamic State suspected as being traitors.”
Totally worth it, right? WRONG. So wrong.
The latest in a series of similar decisions taken by Barack Obama, as to US presence in Afghanistan, is to “effectively leave the decision of when to end America’s 14-year military involvement to his successor.”
What’s at stake this time around? The same as last time: The lives of some of the finest men this country has to offer; the prospect of being killed and crippled for naught. That last line was penned here on 12.02.09
President Obama announced Thursday a significant slowdown in the pace of withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, scrapping his aim of leaving only a small U.S embassy-based force in the country when he steps down from office in 2017 …
As the Taliban insurgency in the country shows signs of renewed strength, Obama said the current contingent of 9,800 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through most of 2016. Their focus will be counter-terrorism and training Afghan forces. “Their mission will not change,” Obama stressed, following the ending of U.S. combat operations in 2014.
But instead of withdrawing by the end of 2016 all but a residual force to be stationed at the heavily-fortified US embassy in Kabul, Obama said 5,500 American troops will remain in the country at four locations around Afghanistan.
Calling the decision “the right thing to do,” Obama said that while Afghan government forces had stepped up and fought for their country, they were not “as strong as they need to be.”
“In key areas of the country, the security situation is still very fragile and in some places there’s risk of deterioration,” he said.
The President’s reversal reflects an increasingly troubling reality: 14 years after they were displaced by the U.S.-led invasion of the country, Taliban insurgents are staging a violent comeback. Meanwhile, against the backdrop of a much-reduced foreign troop cover—the current U.S. presence, for example, is down from a high of over 100,000 in 2011—there is little sign that Afghan forces are strong enough to defend the country from the insurgency. …
MUCH MORE edifying than the non-news media’s pandering is Barely A Blog’s Afghanistan archive:
“The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn’t Care If You Read” (2012)
“Obama’s Address on the War in Afghanistan” (2009)