Over the weekend, the Saudi foreign minister threatened to sell $750 billion in US dollar holdings if Congress passes legislation removing the kingdom's sovereign immunity from liability should Saudi official involvement in the attacks of 9/11 be demonstrated. What would happen to the dollar should a huge dump like this occur? It would have significant impact on global markets, says Ron Paul in today's Liberty Report. Why are the Saudis so nervous? Will their blackmail keep the 28 pages of the 9/11 Report secret? What will Obama say in Riyadh on Wednesday? read on...
The history of post Cold War US involvement in Iraq is the story of the enduring power of myths to drive a false foreign policy narrative and achieve the goals of a singularly-focused pressure group (the interventionist neocons). From the 1990 myth that Saddam Hussein had on his own and in opposition to stated US wishes made a land grab in Kuwait, the myth that Iraqi troops were poised to invade Saudi Arabia, the 2003 myth that Saddam had, "in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons," to the myth that the invasion of Iraq would be a "cakewalk," to the myth that the US attack on Iraq would bring the Iraqi people "hope and progress."
But perhaps one of the most enduring myths of all, endlessly reinforced by the media, has been that after the disastrous aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a few brilliant military philosophers in the Pentagon came up with a "surge" in tandem with a new "counterinsurgency doctrine" that snatched victory in Iraq from the jaws of a horrible, scorched earth defeat.
The "Surge" of some 20,000 additional American troops along with the cancellation of out-rotations of many others is said to have been responsible for an end to -- or at least a great reduction in -- the almost unimaginable levels of violence in Iraq, both among Iraqis and toward the US occupying army. In the words of then-President George W. Bush, the purpose of the surge was "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security." read on...
Many people remember Ron Paul's powerful 2011 House Floor speech, "What If?" In less than four minutes, Rep. Paul completely obliterated the entire neocon foreign policy of interventionism. He turned their claims around on them, he used their lies against them. It was a tremendous, memorable speech. But thanks to a very talented YouTube videographer, that amazing speech got even better. See for yourself... read on...
Washington (under pressure from "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia) has taken advantage of the ceasefire in Syria to ship massive amounts of weapons to the "moderates." Even the mainstream media has reported that 50 percent of what is shipped to the "moderate" Free Syrian Army finds its way into the hands of al-Qaeda's Nusra Front, a US-designated terrorist organization. Plus, State Department Spokesman Mark Toner has admitted that the "moderate" rebels are "co-mingled" with al-Qaeda in Syria. So this new US "Plan B" is for the CIA to arm those who are explicitly dedicated to attacking and overthrowing the Syrian government now that the Russians have succeeded in marginalizing ISIS. Is de-facto US/al-Qaeda alliance in Syria morally justifiable? read on...
According to studies done by government-affiliated doctors, multiple combat deployments have nothing to do with the sharp rise in military suicides over the past several years. The problems are elsewhere, they claim, not the stresses on the military produced by the policy of perpetual war. If we are only allowed to monitor the emails and other communications of vets and active-duty military more closely, they say, we can identify problems before they fully manifest and then prescribe more drugs to fix the problems. And they need more resources. Always more resources... read on...
Yesterday's "no" vote in a Dutch referendum on Ukrainian accession to the European Union has Brussels in a panic. None of the other EU member states allowed a popular vote on bringing in basket case Ukraine -- their parliaments rubber-stamped the agreement. But because unanimity is required for any new members, the Dutch "no" -- even if only technically advisory -- means that the deal is scrapped. For now, at least. Brussels has a way of bringing back vote after vote until the people choose the "right" way. But for now, the result is a huge boost for the Brexit movement as well as for other Euroskeptic parties and politicians throughout Europe. Why did the Dutch vote no? Frustration and anger over Brussels' immigration policy, over the EU blindly following the US "regime change" of Ukraine that has left the country worse off than before, and over Ukraine's suspicious secrecy on the facts of the 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 over eastern Ukraine. What's next? It could get interesting... read on...
Congress loves war, but it just doesn't like to have to vote for it. When you vote for a war you are on record having supported it. So what happens if instead of turning Libya into Switzerland into Libya, the bombing turned Libya into Bangladesh? Better to not have supported it on record. But there is a very dangerous downside to Congress habitually ignoring its Constitutional obligations. It leads to a general policy recklessness and inability to look at cause and effect. Dangerous for us at home and for those abroad. We try to tackle this issue in today's Liberty Report... read on...
The scandal around the fixing of intelligence around the Pentagon training program for Syrian rebels has been on slow burn for some time. The mainstream media has largely avoided it, but when Pentagon superiors quash reports of intelligence analysts because they don't match the desired outcome of the policy there is a big problem. Having spent $500 million to train rebels last year and only produced five fighters, there should be more scrutiny of this program, not less. More today in the Liberty Report... read on...
Imagine how many thousands of lives could have been saved in Syria if Congress had only listened to Ron Paul. Almost five years ago, Rep. Paul took to the House Floor to introduce legislation prohibiting the president from providing any form of military assistance -- covert or otherwise -- to any faction fighting to overthrow the government in Syria. Dr. Paul noted that it was becoming increasingly obvious that President Obama was conducting covert activities inside Syria to help the rebels fighting against the Assad government, but he warned that no one knew the real composition of the many different groups operating inside Syria and that the weapons being covertly shipped to them could well find their way into the hands of al-Qaeda, our stated enemy. read on...
It is going to cost the US $3.4 billion, but Commander of NATO's European Command Gen. Philip Breedlove announced that the US will be sending thousands of additional troops to deploy on Russia's border in the Baltics, as well as in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. This "European Reassurance Initiative" is said to protect NATO's eastern borders from "Russian aggression." But isn't putting you troops on the border of another country thousands of miles away itself an aggressive act? And what about helping overthrow the elected leaders of another country, as the US did in Ukraine? Is that not aggressive? Who is the real aggressor here -- today in the Liberty Report... read on...
