Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Standing Armies Commandeered by Cowards

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Just War, Military, Palestinian Authority, Terrorism, War

The following is from “Standing Armies Commandeered by Cowards,” now on RT.

“In ‘Letters from Iceland,’ W. H. Auden reflected on ‘the cold controlled ferocity of the human species.’ The latest flare-up in the cold war between Hamas and Israel is ‘an extraordinary vision’ of that ferocity. …

…The locking of horns between Hamas and Israel cost 150 Palestinians and five Israelis their lives. The fight was started by Hamas. Hamas hides among unwitting civilians, who have no way of controlling its activities.

This fact does not give Israel the right to kill innocent non-combatants, not even unintentionally.

Besides, murder is not ‘unintentional’ when you know it is inevitable.

… Israeli commandos such as the ‘Sayeret Matkal’ are trained in surgical strikes, including modern urban counterterrorism operations. ‘Sayeret’ soldiers can trace and neutralize the source of an attack against Israeli civilians sans ‘collateral damage.’

Yes, what’s the matter with Israel’s Special Operations capabilities? Where are Israel’s precision Pac Men?

Did the Israel Defense Forces rain bombs, willy-nilly, on the civilians at the Entebbe Airport—in Uganda, on July 4, 1976—where the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine held 100 hijacked Jews and Israelis hostage?

Not on your life.

Led by Lt. Col. Yonatan Netanyahu, Bibi Netanyau’s late great brother, 100 members of the ‘Sayeret’ traversed 2,500 miles to rescue their brethren. They killed only those who needed killing….”

The complete column is “Standing Armies Commandeered by Cowards,” now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

On the Atrocity Scale, Bush’s Badness Dwarfed Benghazi-gate

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Just War, Pseudo-history, Republicans, War

As bad as it is, Benghazi-gate is nothing as compared to the cost in blood and treasure, courtesy of George W. Bush, of the immoral, fraudulent invasion of Iraq.

Nothing.

Follow the hyperlinks above if you have doubts. (You shouldn’t, if you have a moral compass and a cerebral cortex.)

It would be an entirely different matter if Republicans had the intellectual moxie to examine the human toll, for decades to come, of Obama’s “murder by multilateralism” in Libya. For that was what the invasion of Libya amounted to.

But they don’t. To the Republicans, Benghazi-gate amounts to no more that a “procedural mishap.” Namely, finding out “what happened? How did it happen? Who covered it up? And, above all, how do we return to doing what we did before IT happened. ‘IT’ being the Sept. 11 attack on the embassy in Libya that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and ‘three other,’ mostly faceless Americans dead.”

And if, in the process of discovery, Republicans can implicate the president—all the better.

By the way, here’s a big surprise. As was to be expected, the horrible David Petraeus “lied to Congress” last week. Oops. Reports RT:

Retired US Army General David Petraeus testified before Congress this week about the storming of a US consulate building in Benghazi, contradicting previous statements made by the since-resigned CIA chief.
Friday morning’s closed-door session was void of the normal media presence as lawmakers on Capitol Hill grilled Gen. Petraeus for further information about the assault in Libya two months ago that left four Americans dead, including the country’s ambassador.
Since the attack on Sept. 12, little has been explained to either the public or politicians in Washington about what really happened before, during and after the consulate was raided in Benghazi. In the immediate aftermath, the White House, State Department and reportedly even Petraeus himself suggested that the assault was likely a spontaneous response to an anti-Islamic film produced in America that had been circulating on the Web. Hours earlier a similar demonstration erupted outside a US embassy in Cairo, Egypt, and the events shortly after in Benghazi were considered to be a copycat protest. In the weeks and months since the attack, however, government agencies have slowly but surely retired that explanation to instead blame the assault on anti-American insurgents, perhaps with al-Qaeda affiliation, waging what is now considered a terrorist attack.
Gen. Petraeus testified to that claim on Friday, sources in attendance say, despite previously suggesting the Benghazi incident was spurred by the “Innocence of Muslims” movie.

UPDATED: Benghazigate And The Media (Who Are Seasonal Defenders Of D.C. )

Democrats, Foreign Policy, Journalism, libertarianism, Media, Middle East, Propaganda, Pseudo-history, Republicans, War

“Barack Obama is a despicable man.” These are the words of the always outspoken and interesting Michael Scheuer (a staunch, pro-military Old Rightist, whose patriotism often leads him to conspiratorial anti-Israelism).

Scheuer was on Fox Business discussing Benghazigate.

Fox News is covering the Benghazi story wall-to-wall; the other cable news stations not at all.

This reportorial bifurcation is pretty typical of mainstream media, which includes Fox, of course. In the ramp-up to a Republican president’s unjust war on Iraq, Fox gave the Shrub and his administration a complete pass, while The Other Cable TV stations exposed the corrupt Republicans quite well.

“Reporters who slept with their sources,” “PRESSTITUTES,“ bobble-heads who were “TUNED-OUT, TURNED-ON, AND HOT FOR WAR”: These were some of the terms I used in 2003 and onward for Fox News:

“… to watch these women doing the Countdown to Obliterating Iraq segments was like watching bitches on heat. One anchorwoman’s memorable Freudian slip was to express disappointment that there was as yet no “evidence that’ll give us an excuse [her words] to attack Iraq.” On and on. (Collated in Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With a Corrupt Culture.)

Most of my information about Iraqi civilian casualties came from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. American mainstream media was generally missing in action on that front.

“ON PIMPS AND ‘PRESSTITUTES’” encapsulates the US media’s reporting during the invasion of Iraq, RIP:

…The monolithic quality of the reporting/cheerleading coming from the networks was and still is proof of the slutty sell-out. Practically all network embeds focused exclusively on the pentagon’s version of who did what, when, and how. Logistics usurped real issues; spectacle replaced substance, as the viewer was subjected to a perspective as monochromatic as the green of the night vision optics. …
…Reporting hearsay as truth and failing to verify stories has also been part of the networks’ war effort. A Geiger counter that went off in the inexpert hands of a marine was broadcast as possible evidence of weapons-grade plutonium. Every bottle of Cipro tablets became a likely precursor to an anthrax factory. Anchormen and women somberly seconded these “finds,” seldom bothering to issue retractions for misinforming the viewing public.

Then the guard changed. To American pundits (libertarians excepted), the changing of the guard in D.C. simply means a change of positions. Whereas MSNBC and CNN were more likely to expose the Bush Administration, they quickly assumed the position previously occupied by the Fox News network during the Bush years: defenders of D.C.

The pundits you follow, libertarains excepted, are all seasonal defenders of D.C.

To sum, Benghazi is a scandal. Fox News has been reporting (diligently, since their guy is NOT in D.C.) that: “…an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

Try to remember: The White House Situation Room, the State Department, CIA and Pentagon were just as good at forsaking Americans during the other bastard’s reign of terror.

For example, “Under ‘W,’ ordinary Americans were regularly beheaded in the theaters of war Genghis Bush launched. None of their representatives stateside bargained for their lives or staged showy Congressional hearings to probe their forsaken security.”

My hope is that the same readers who tried to have me dismissed from WND, during the Republican occupation of America, will elevate themselves above their current political preference and see the thing for what it is.

UPDATE (Oct. 27): If not for RT, we’d be as deaf and dumb (as ex-Facebook Friend, HJ) about the humanitarian disaster unfolding, a la Iraq, in Lebanon. Another Syria. Or rather, another Iraq. Read about the “Siege of Bani Walid.” Watch the visuals of the maimed and dead. Babies too.

UPDATED: Romney’s Debate Strategy: Try To Throw Obama Off-Scent (What Was Obama Doing? Winning)

Democrats, Economy, Elections, Foreign Policy, Republicans

Barack Obama has made a strong start to the final presidential debate at Boca Raton, Fla., and is already winning this foreign-policy debate. Where the one man’s policies start and the other man’s policies end is anyone’s guess. What we do know so far is that both Romney and Obama care a lot about women and democracy … all over the world. I don’t.

Romney is being smart in as much as he is throwing Obama off-scent and directing the debate away from foreign policy to the economy. Romney’s foreign policy, after all, offers nothing new.

Later.

UPDATE: FROM MY DEBATE NOTEPAD (transcripts are here):

What was Obama doing? Winning.

Romney took the place Barack Obama had occupied 2 weeks back: that of loser.

While Obama stutters each time he attempts to conceptualize about economic issues, Romney does a similar thing when trying to differentiate himself from the president on foreign policy.

The degree of convergence between the candidates? Romney, like Obama, loves drone action, loves nation building across the globe, bitch slapping China, helping da Afghan women, making foreign aid conditional (rather than eliminating it); approves of state-assistance following bankruptcy procedures and state investment in R & D.

Obama had a nice line (upon which I’ve riffed a bit): “No reason why Americans should die, if Afghans can do their own dying.” Romney was, obviously, a little reluctant. If Americans are not dying in defense of borders not their own—someone must be leading from behind. (All presidents should, in my opinion, lead from behind, unless they are taking the lead on how not to lead very much at all.)

Oh, and with heels, Michelle Obama is as tall as Mitt Romney. On the sartorial front: Mrs. Obama wore a cute dress; so did Ann Romney. (I’m glad Ann took off the red garments. While I love a deep burgundy, red is such an ugly color that it colors everyone who wears it ugly.)