After 8 Years Of Unbroken War, Obama Hands Over Conflicts To Trump
January 18, 2017
Among the many things President Obama will be handing off to his successor this week: stubborn wars in three separate countries.
Obama came to office eight years ago vowing to end U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet President-elect Trump stands to inherit the nation’s longest war ever in Afghanistan, as well as renewed fighting in Iraq that has spread to Syria.
The outgoing president was reminded of the persistence of those wars at the pomp-filled farewell ceremony the Pentagon put on for him him earlier this month at a nearby military base.
“Mr. President, we’ve been at war throughout your tenure,” said Gen. Joesph Dunford, chosen by Obama in 2015 to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “That’s a period longer than any other American president.”
That’s right: Obama is the first president to serve eight years and preside over American wars during every single day of his tenure.
Now that a Republican will soon be in the White House, liberals can go back to PRETENDING that they are against war
Although the U.S. still has 5,000 troops in Iraq during the last year of Obama’s presidency, the protestors who demanded that we “bring the troops home” when Bush was president haven’t made the same demand on Obama.
On the contrary, the Democrats tried to elect a candidate who wants to start World War III.
Here’s a nice satire of these “anti-war” hypocrites.
Thank goodness for the electoral college, which prevented Hillary Clinton from starting World War III
Hillary Clinton admitted in 2013 that a no-fly zone would “kill a lot of Syrians” — but still wants one
A no-fly zone in Syria could lead to a U.S. war with Russia — but Hillary Clinton keeps on calling for one
October 21, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton continues to call for a no-fly zone in Syria, insisting it would save lives. Yet, just three years ago, she acknowledged in a private paid speech to Goldman Sachs that a no-fly zone would “kill a lot of Syrians” and lead to “American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.”
In numerous presidential debates, Clinton has proposed creating a no-fly zone or so-called safe zones in Syria, areas in which planes piloted by the Syrian government or by its Russian allies could not operate. If planes were to fly in these zones, they would be shot down.
Clinton repeated her call for a no-fly zone in the final presidential debate on Wednesday night. “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria,” she said, adding that it would be “not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians.”
What Clinton did not acknowledge is that a no-fly zone would likely lead to war with Russia — the world’s largest nuclear power.
Chris Wallace, the moderator for the debate, alluded to this in a follow-up question. He noted that, while Clinton has called for no-fly zones in multiple debates, Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has warned that imposing a no-fly zone could potentially kick off a war with Russia.
Moreover, “President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it’s going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict,” Wallace added. “How do you respond to their concerns?” he asked. “If you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”
Clinton conceded that she is “well aware of the really legitimate concerns that you have expressed from both the president and the general,” yet avoided directly answering the question, doubling down on her policy. Instead of identifying a no-fly zone as a military strategy, she spoke of it as a diplomatic one, claiming, “I think a no-fly zone could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict.”
This argument, however, is undermined by what Clinton herself privately acknowledged just three years ago. An excerpt of a June 2013 paid speech Clinton delivered to Goldman Sachs, recently released by the WikiLeaks, shows that Clinton is well aware of how dangerous a no-fly zone could be.
“To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas,” the former secretary of state explained in the 2013 speech. “So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk — you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians.”
“So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians,” she added.
Clinton also noted that Syria had “the fourth-biggest army in the world,” along with “very sophisticated air defense systems” that had gotten even more sophisticated because of Russian imports.
The quotes from this speech were included in a list of excerpts of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street, which was attached to a January 2016 email to John Podesta, a close Clinton ally who now serves as the chair for Clinton’s presidential campaign. WikiLeaks has published thousands of emails to and from Podesta.
In the same 2013 Goldman Sachs speech included in this document, Clinton pointed out that a no-fly zone in Syria would be different from the no-fly zone that was imposed in Libya in 2011, which ultimately led to the violent overthrow of the government.
“The air defenses were not that sophisticated” in Libya, she said. Clinton also noted that there would be many more civilian casualties in Syria than there had been in Libya.
“And then you add on to it [that] a lot of the air defenses are not only in civilian population centers but near some of their chemical stockpiles,” Clinton added, referencing Syria. “You do not want a missile hitting a chemical stockpile.”
The no-fly zone imposed in Libya paved the way for the toppling, and brutal killing, of former leader Muammar Qadhafi. The U.N. Security Council first established the zone ostensibly to protect civilians, yet it quickly led to a NATO bombing campaign.
In fact, every time a no-fly zone has been imposed, it has led to regime change.
Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, used NATO’s own materials to show that, despite the humanitarian rhetoric behind the call for a no-fly zone in Libya, Western governments planned to pursue regime change in the oil-rich North African country from the very beginning.
A September 2016 report by the U.K. House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee also detailed how the war in Libya was based on an array of lies.
Update: The “Defcon Warning System” mentioned in this article is NOT the official DEFCON system that we are all familiar with. Instead, it is a completely DIFFERENT organization which deliberately tries to trick people. And I fell for it. My error. I apologize.
Defcon nuclear threat REDUCED to safest level following Donald Trump victory
America’s Defcon warning level has been reduced to its safest threat level possible following Donald Trump’s shock presidential election win
November 15, 2016
The Defcon Warning System, a private organisation which monitors world events and estimates the nuclear threat against America, is now at Level 5 – its lowest possible state.
Just weeks ago the warning was accelerated to Level 3 following increased tensions between US and Russia, with insiders fearing the West was creeping closer to nuclear war.
Level 3 means US troops could be mobilised in as little as 15 minutes.
But the group, made up of experts claiming to have contacts within the US security industry, have seen Donald Trump’s election win as a pacifier for Russian relations.
The group wrote on its website: “The United States took a tentative step toward a more isolationist policy with its recent presidential election.
“While it will take several months to see how the US reforms its foreign policy, already some world leaders have expressed hope that relations could improve, including Russia and Syria.
“If the new US President keeps to his previous statements, look for the United States to withdraw somewhat from military confrontations in the Middle East and possibly European theatre, though it is highly unlikely it will abandon NATO commitments, and the Ukraine will likely pop up again in the near future.
“Russia, however, will probably wait to see what the new President does, as well as now being hampered by the coming winter.”
Donald Trump’s election as president of America was welcomed by Vladimir Putin, leader of the US’ biggest rival Russia.
He said he hoped the pair would be able to work well together towards a more friendly relationship between the two superstates.
The group did warn, however, about some remaining threats to US and world security.
It said: “China and North Korea … continue to either cast a wary eye or are outright belligerent. Israel … will become more of a focal point again.
“Meanwhile, more troops are to be sent to Europe in 2017 to bolster defences against Russian movements and NATO continues building up forces in Poland and surrounding areas to protect against a potential Russian assault.”
While the US government also uses the Defcon system, it is private and not available to the public, so public records are estimates.
Level 5 means the US Department of Defence should be at its lowest state of readiness for nuclear war.
While Veterans were dying due to lack of medical care, the Veterans Administration spent millions of dollars to install solar panels that were never used because they were incompatible with the local electric grid
In 2013, while veterans were dying due to lack of medical care, the Veterans Administration spent millions of dollars to install solar panels at its facility in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two years later, the panels were removed and reinstalled to accommodate a new parking garage. However, the panels were never turned on in either of these installations, because they were incompatible with the local electric grid.
In July 2016, it was reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had shared 22 emails that were marked “top secret” with three of her aides. These aides had not been cleared to receive such information, which means that it was illegal for Clinton to share the information with them. However, Obama refused to prosecute her.
However, in August 2016, one month later, U.S. News & World Report reported:
Sailor Denied ‘Clinton Deal’, Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 Photos of Sub
A former Navy machinist mate who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine was sentenced to a year in prison Friday, with a federal judge rebuffing a request for probation in light of authorities deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on a private email server as secretary of state.
Kristian Saucier’s attorneys argued in a court filing last week that Clinton had been “engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier” with information of much higher classification. It would be “unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid,” attorney Derrick Hogan wrote.
U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill sentenced Saucier to one year in prison and a $100 fine, along with six months home confinement, 100 hours of community service and a ban on owning guns, his legal team says.
Poll: Libertarian Johnson beating Trump, Clinton among active troops
July 20, 2016
Military troops favor Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president over Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, according to a new survey.
Johnson garnered 38.7 percent of the active duty vote, versus 30.9 for Trump, and 14.1 for Clinton, according to the survey, which was conducted via the popular military personality Doctrine Man.
Although the survey was not a scientific poll with a margin of error, it provides a snapshot of the preferences of about 3,500 active duty, reservists, retired and former members of the military and their family members, 95.7 percent of which were registered voters.
Among all services except for the Navy, Johnson performed better than Trump and Clinton.
Current, reserve and former members of the Army preferred Johnson at 35.4 percent. Trump, the Republican nominee, came in second at 31.4 percent, and Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, at 15.3 percent.
Among the Marine community, an overwhelming 44.1 percent chose Johnson, while 27.1 percent chose Trump, and 12.7 percent chose Clinton.
The majority of the Air Force respondents chose Johnson at 39 percent, but Trump next at 29.9 percent and Clinton at 12.9 percent.
Trump ranked the top choice for the Navy community, at 32.4 percent, versus 31.7 percent for Johnson and 22.9 percent for Clinton.
Despite Clinton’s underwhelming performance among active duty troops in the poll, their family members preferred Clinton at 29.4 percent to 27.5 percent for Trump. Johnson came in third, at 24.5 percent.
Trump came out on top among members of the military who retired after serving at least 20 years.
Retirees preferred Trump at 37.4 percent, compared to 32.2 percent for Johnson and only 11 percent for Hillary Clinton.
However, when former members of the military who served fewer than 20 years were included, Johnson came in first, at 36.1 percent, while Hillary Clinton garnered 12.6 percent.
The new survey underscores the unpopularity of both Trump and Clinton, something that was also reflected in a recent Military Times survey.
Troops have found themselves at the center of several heated campaign debates, many of them sparked by Trump.
Trump has said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was held captive during the Vietnam War, is “not a war hero” and has said that if he ordered troops to re-institute waterboarding, they would do it. Trump has also called for killing terrorists’ families.
Trump has also railed against the Department of Veteran Affairs and suggested Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl should be executed for leaving his post.
The attention to troops this campaign cycle has prompted the nation’s top military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, to remind troops not to politicize the military during the elections.
“What we must collectively guard against is allowing our institution to become politicized, or even perceived as being politicized, by how we conduct ourselves during engagements with the media, the public, or in open or social forums,” he wrote in the July issue of Joint Force Quarterly, a military academic journal.
Donald Trump Could Be the Military-Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare
The Republican front-runner is against nation building. Imagine that.
By William Greider
March 23, 2016
Let’s admit it. As political provocateur, Donald Trump has a dizzy kind of genius. He feints to the right, then he spins to the left. Either way, the hot subject for political chatter becomes Donald Trump.
This week, while people everywhere were fretting over his violent talk, the candidate came to Washington and dropped a peace bomb on the neocon editorial writers at The Washington Post and the war lobby. Trump wants to get the United States out of fighting other people’s wars. He thinks maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness. He asks why Americans are still paying for South Korea’s national defense. Or Germany’s or Saudi Arabia’s.
“I do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,” Trump said. “I think it’s proven not to work. And we have a different country than we did then. You know we have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting probably on a bubble, and, you know, it’s a bubble that if it breaks is going to be very nasty. And I just think we have to rebuild our country.”
Will anybody give him an amen? Yes, lots of folks. People who read The Nation (myself included) have been saying something similar for a long time. So have libertarian Republicans on the right. But this sort of thinking is mega-heresy among the political establishment of both parties. The foreign-policy operators consider themselves in charge of the “indispensable nation.”
This new Trump talk is definitely career-threatening for the military-industrial complex. It was particularly playful of Trump to choose The Washington Post as the place to drop his bomb; after all, it’s the Post that has made itself such a righteous preacher for endless war-making.
The Donald, usually bellicose in style and substance, is singing, “Give peace a chance.” What does his detour portend for national policy? We can’t know for sure, since Trump also has a tendency to casually contradict himself before different audiences. Later on the same day, he addressed AIPAC’s convention and sounded like a warrior for Zion. He got thunderous applause after making the ritual promises that candidates from both parties always make at AIPAC meetings.
But Trump has, in his usual unvarnished manner, kicked open the door to an important and fundamental foreign-policy debate. It is far more profound than the disputes we usually hear between hawks and doves. He’s proposing a radical standard for testing US policy abroad, both in war and peace: Is it actually in America’s interest? Or has US global strategy become a dangerous hangover from the glory years, when Washington armed and organized nations for the Cold War?
Whatever happened in past decades, Trump insists that this US ambition always to be in charge is now actively damaging our country, wasting scarce treasure and drawing us into other people’s conflicts. The Post opinionators must have choked on his words.
“I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’d be blown up,” Trump told the editors. “And we’d build another one and it would get blown up. And we would rebuild it three times. And yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn.… at what point do you say hey, we have to take care of ourselves. So, you know, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that but at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially in the inner cities.”
Trump has thus shrewdly articulated what ought to be a vital subject for debate in 2016. Instead, I suspect, he will be inundated with lordly rebukes by the policy elites. And the editorial writers will explain how half-baked and dangerous his ideas are to the future of mankind.
We can imagine the labels they’ll haul out from history: Protectionist. Nationalist. Isolationist. America Firster. His challenging proposition reminds me of my childhood, because I grew up in idyllic small-town Ohio, where those skeptical views of “foreign entanglements” defined the Republican Party (there weren’t many Democrats in my home town, and they mostly kept quiet).
As teenagers, we grew up as Robert A. Taft Republicans and deeply suspicious of the “Eastern Establishment,” who looked down on us as Midwestern bumpkins. The decisive election was 1952, when Taft lost the GOP nomination to a genuine national hero, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower. We were heartbroken. In the Midwest we lived in the middle of a great big country and could reasonably feel that we should stay out of other people’s troubles. The Cold War pretty much destroyed that common sense.
Ike’s victory ratified America’s commitment to developing a new world order of global alliances and foreign military deployments. That order seemed like the right thing to do 60 years ago, but now it falls to an outsider named Trump to demand fundamental reconsideration.
I suspect most Americans would agree with Trump’s tough questions, but are not sure of the answers (neither, perhaps, is he). Plus, in these insecure times, people do not wish to sound unpatriotic. In my hometown, we quickly fell in love with Eisenhower the moderate Republican, who resisted the party’s hard right (who thought Ike was a commie).
At the end of his second presidential term, Eisenhower, the general who won World War II in Europe, was warning us about the dangers of something he called the “military-industrial complex.” I wonder what he would tell us today.
Obama administration refuses to fire or prosecute two Veterans Administration officials who stole $400,000 from the Veterans Administration
The Obama administration has decided that it will neither fire nor prosecute two Veterans Administration officials who have stolen $400,000 from the Veterans Administration.
This does not surprise me.
It disgusts me.
But it does not surprise me.
If the Iraq War ended in 2011, then why does the U.S. still have 5,000 troops there in 2016?
And how come the protestors who always shouted “Bring the stoops home!” when Bush was President, are silent about these 5,000 troops now that Obama is President?
On a personal level, I am against dress codes.
However, I also respect that there are certain organizations that have dress codes, and if I were to choose to be at one one of those organizations, I would obey whatever dress code they had.
Under Commander-in-Chief Obama, who has never actually served in the military, the Citadel, a 175-year-old U.S. military college, is considering giving its first ever exception to its dress code, and it’s doing so for religious reasons. Not for a Christian, not for a Jew, not for a Hindu. It’s for a Muslim.
Because, as Obama himself has said, one of his favorite sounds in the world is the Muslim call to prayer.
Every time that Obama treats Muslims and Christians differently, it is always, always, always the case that he sides with Muslims over Christians. This is just one more example. And it’s disgusting.
Muslims truck drivers get fired for refusing to drive trucks filled with beer? Obama sides with the Muslims.
Christian bakers don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings? Obama sides against the Christians.
In Syria, Christians make up 10% of the population, are they being targeted for the worst kinds of persecution. However, during the two weeks after Islamist terrorists murdered 130 people in Paris, of the 132 Syrian refugees that Obama admitted into the U.S., 100% of them were Muslim, and 0% of them were Christian.
After Nidal Malik Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” and murdered 13 people on U.S. soil, instead of referring to it as “Islamic terrorism,” Obama said that it was “workplace violence.”
Obama chose to marry a woman who said that, as an adult, she never loved the U.S. until after Obama got elected President. At the time, she had been an adult for 26 years. And this person who did not love the U.S. for 26 years is the person whom Obama chose to marry.
Donald Trump is an asshole. But at least he loves the U.S., and respects its traditions and values.
I nominate this guy to be the next U.S. President:
Vietnam veteran stands up to Baltimore rioters, becomes hero of the night
April 28, 2015
While police stood by and watched the city of Baltimore succumb to looting and plundering, one lone Vietnam veteran stood in front of them, and in front of rioters, and took control of the situation like only a veteran can.
Robert Valentine, who initially identified himself as “just a soldier,” was caught by CNN cameras yelling at the rioters to go away. Shockingly, they listened.
CNN reporter Joe Johns asked Valentine if he was concerned for his own safety when he confronted the mob.
“I did 30 years, OK, came out a Master Sergeant. I’ve seen more than all this,” he said. “I’ve been through the riots already. This right here is not relevant. They need to have their butts at home. They need to be in their home units with their families studying and doing something with their life. Not out here protesting about something that is not really about nothing.
“They do not respect this young man’s death. You know. Now, mama and daddy lost a child. That could be them. So I’m very pissed.”
When asked why he did it when others would be afraid, Valentine gave the greatest answer.
“I love my country. I love my Charm City. I’m an American,” he said. “I’m not black, white, red, yellow or nothing. I am American.”
Too bad Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake doesn’t have the same leadership ability.
What exactly did these idiots think it was going to be like?
If any of them do return to France, I hope they get charged with aiding terrorists, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison.
And I hope that innocent baby gets French citizenship, and is adopted by more rational parents.
The Telegraph reports:
Jihadists in Syria write home to France: ‘My iPod is broken. I want to come back’
French jihadists complain about the cold, not knowing how to fight and how their iPods are running out
December 2, 2014
Letters from French jihadists home to their parents have revealed the misery, boredom and fear suffered by Islamist recruits as the gloss fades from their big adventure.
In a series of letters seen by Le Figaro newspaper, some of the 376 French currently fighting in Syria have begged for advice on how to return. Others have complained that, rather than participating in a noble battle, they have been acting as jihadi dogsbodies.
“I’ve basically done nothing except hand out clothes and food,” wrote one, who wants to return from Aleppo. “I also help clean weapons and transport dead bodies from the front. Winter’s arrived here. It’s begun to get really hard.”
Another writes: “I’m fed up. They make me do the washing up.”
One Frenchman whinged that he wanted to come home because he was missing the comforts of life in France.
“I’m fed up. My iPod doesn’t work any more here. I have to come back.”
A third wrote fearfully: “They want to send me to the front, but I don’t know how to fight.”
Others were concerned, more prosaically, about the nationality of their baby, which was born in Syria and so not recognised by the French state.
Why do they refer to a missile defense system as “Star Wars” when it’s actually a lot more like “Missile Command”?
This is Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system. Turn your volume control pretty low for this:
And this is the video game “Missile Command” on the Atari 2600:
Anyway, I think all those liberals who mocked Ronald Reagan for proposing something like this owe him a huge apology.
At 3:25 in this video, Marie Harf, the deputy spokesperson for Obama’s State Department, refers to the five recently released Taliban terrorists as “gentleman.”
This video is titled “Watch Obama smile as soon as Robert Bergdahl praises Allah.”
The description states:
Walid and Theodore Shoebat say that while the Obama administration is proudly touting how it was able to free an American soldier who was captured by the Taliban, what no one picked is the fact that Obama SMILED as soon as he heard the most famous war cry of Islam, “bismillah al-rahman al-rahim,” Arabic for “in the name of Allah the most gracious, the most merciful.”
Judicial Watch reports that the Obama administration had secretly given military equipment to Russia after Russia invaded Ukraine.
I wonder what makes Obama’s supporters happier – the fact that he gave Russia this military aid after it invaded Ukraine, or the fact that he kept it a secret.
Of course if a Republican president did this, the so-called “peace activists” and “anti-war activists” would be livid with protest. But since Obama is a Democrat, they don’t mind at all. I’m sure they’d happily elect him for a third term if he wasn’t term limited by the Constitution.
The Washington Examiner has just reported:
Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition
President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda
The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.”
That sounds pretty scary to me.
It also sounds like grounds for impeachment.
I hope this doesn’t lead to World War III.