The Washington Post finally realized today that virtually every pundit allowed space in its paper and allowed time on the mainstream corporate news is an advocate for war, and that, further, each of them seem to have a personal stake in the promotion of war. Today the Post reported on a new study by the Public Accountability Initiative which found that: read on...
The Obama administration conducted two covert raids in Africa this past week, one in Libya and one in Somalia. One was a messy failure that will only increase blowback; the other was largely irrelevant but raised serious questions about post-"liberation" Libya.
In Somalia, it was reported that Navy SEALs conducted a raid on a village that was said to house senior members of the al-Shahaab group, which had recently taken credit for the attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Kenya. read on...
The Washington Post yesterday carried the extraordinary story of two Marine generals fired after a 2012 Afghan insurgent attack on Camp Leatherneck/Camp Bastion in Afghanistan's Helmand province. The attack by a handful of Afghan fighters resulted in two dead Marines, as well as the destruction of half a dozen AV-8B Harrier jets at a cost of some $200 million.
Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus, the top Marine commander in southern Afghanistan at the time, and Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, the senior Marine aviation officer in the area, were fired for "failing to assign sufficient military personnel to secure the area" and for failing “to exercise the level of judgment expected of commanders of their rank,” respectively.
It was "the first time since the Vietnam war that a US general has been fired for negligence after an enemy attack," the Post wrote. read on...
What a treat it was for me to spend part of my day on the radio with the great Tom Woods! On his Show today, we discussed Syria, John McCain and the neocons, Iran, the Ron Paul Institute, and working for Ron Paul in the House. Tom is a gracious host and I hope you enjoy the show as much as I did. And keep listening to Tom! read on...
In a stunning blow to the "humanitarian interventionists" of the Obama administration and another boost for Russian diplomatic efforts, the five permanent Members of the UN Security Council appear to have agreed to a resolution governing the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons that rejects each point the US administration not long ago deemed essential to such an agreement.
Secretary of State John Kerry as recently as last week "insisted" that any UN resolution dealing with Syrian chemical disarmament must be filed under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which provides for the use of force if the agreement is not satisfactorily implemented. Russia, which had been tricked by the Obama administration over its Chapter 7 demands on Libya that ended in a disastrous war, refused to fall again for the ruse. Even as Kerry lied last week to the US media that Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov had agreed to a Chapter 7 resolution, the Russians denied Kerry's claims. Now we see that Chapter 7 is dead in the water. read on...
Remember the "Arab Spring" that was embraced by so many opponents of the US empire as a spontaneous movement in opposition to the hegemonic regional aspirations of the US, Israel, and the dictatorial Gulf Arab states? The Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions were to set the example for the rest of the region and send a message to the hegemons: no more external manipulation of domestic political process and movements, no more propping up of dictators, no more boot on the neck of the Palestinian struggle for a non-apartheid existence. The Arab Spring was said to be an end to the opportunities of external powers to manipulate events in the region. read on...
The US and Russia yesterday reached what looks to be a solid agreement on how to proceed with the dismantling of the chemical weapons stores of the Syrian government as well as destruction of Syria's production capabilities. Syria agreed to the Russian-proposed deal (with a little inspiration from US Secretary of State John Kerry) with the understanding that giving up its chemical weapons would avert a US military attack.
The agreement seems full enough of ambiguities regarding the consequences of less than full Syrian compliance to allow the US government some face-saving saber rattling about retaining the option to strike unilaterally, while being vague enough in defining what exactly constitutes non-compliance to make difficult a clear cut case for a UN Chapter 7 use of force resolution. In other words, seemingly win-win. read on...
So now we know that Elizabeth O'Bagy, the "expert" cited by Secretary Kerry, Senator McCain, and others as an important impartial source claiming that moderates, not radicals, dominate among Syrian insurgents is a liar.
Her padded resume was a convenient excuse for her termination from her main job at Kimberly Kagan's Institute for the Study of War (where arch-neocon William Kristol is Chairman).
However the real scandal is not O'Bagy's falsely claimed PhD, but rather that at her other job, for the Syrian Emergency Task Force, she had been at the enter of a massive propaganda and influence campaign aimed at the American people, pushing the idea that there were moderates in Syria who the US should be supporting. O'Bagy played a key role in that influence campaign and she was being paid to lie about the insurgents by the US government itself! Yes, the real scandal is that O'Bagy was being paid as a State Department contractor to pose as a Syria expert and convince Americans that the Syrian insurgents should be supported. read on...
