« Tell Congress what you want. | Main | Islamist jihadis capture Christian town in Syria »

06 September 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Reading the story linked by "D" - Is Putin Really Planning To Bomb Saudi Arabia? I did a cursory search of author Mark Ames, which has led me to question the validity of the story. Being a celebrity media star is one thing, offering sober investigation and analysis is something different.

The beaver

The Germans have started to change their tune -wonder WHY?

Is it because the citizen journalists with different backgrounds are asking more pertinent questions than the corporate owned MSM or newspapers who kowtow with the western elitist governments ?

r whitman

I fully agree with you. I brought up the German thesis right after the incident happened and got laughed out of my discussion group. It was either the rebels did it or Assad did it.


Perhaps, but given the accuracy of his reportage in the Georgian dust-up, and the lines he traced between rabid neo-cons and the encouragement that they gave to the President of Georgia in his asinine attempt to beard the Bear, I would be unwilling to chalk the story up to some effort at self-aggrandizement. One gets to be a recognized journalist not always through one's long-range analytical skills, but in being in the way of receiving information hidden from public view (and the hiding being done with malice aforethought by our oh-so-trustworthy MSM), and getting it out there for the deliberation of the world. The characterization of Mr. Ames as a self-boosting "celebrity media star" treads awfully close to the ad hominem attacks used to surreptitiously undermine the content of their reportage. This is not to say that he does not make mistakes in the evaluation of his sources' veracity, and that his reportage may not suffer as a consequence; when working with the ofttimes dodgy information sources with whom he interacts, that is only to be expected. But I would not, therefore, dismiss his reportage out of hand. Recall how he pointed out that the NYT belatedly came to the conclusion that the reportage that they had offered at the time of the Georgian conflict was flawed, and although they did not name him by name, so much as admitted that his reportage was far closer to the mark than their people in the field had produced.

The consequences of blithely assuming that the US can act without worry of things spinning out of control in this chaotic situation could be dire, and deliberations should include thinking and reportage that do not fit into the pre-determined boxes favored by Obama and his inept national security team.

If I remember correctly, a few years ago the Russians executed an assassination of some Islamist terrorists from Chechnya in one of the countries of the Arabian Peninsula where they had thought that they were off the radar and safe. Pretty bold, eh? So the Russians will not scruple to defend their national interests, even if it involves a hit squad in the middle of their enemies' protectors/financiers own countries. They are playing for actual stakes when fighting a war against those who have instigated multiple terrorist incidents, and thinking that those who finance and support those brutal acts are safe from consequences might be a bit hasty, particularly when someone like Bandar goes into the Bear's own lair, and so much as threatens the President of Russia with terrorism at the upcoming Sochi Olympic Games. That might just be foolhardy arrogance on his part, and he might find out that this is not to be tolerated, even if it does not come to bombing of Saudi Arabia itself. The Saudis might be: 1) Believing their own legend far too much; 2) Assuming their impunity from consequences because of something that Carter articulated years ago before it was discovered what a bunch or right bastards the Saudis really were. I think that few would shed tears were they to be taken down a few pegs. I know that I wouldn't, as they seem to be clearly behind 9/11 and other terrorist acts against the US around the world. They love their Islamist salafist pals so much, why don't they confine them to quarters back home instead of shipping them overseas to wreak havoc on other nations? Bacause the Saudi royals wouldn't last long is the obvious answer.


The relevant reps in Congress should be drafting the Articles of Impeachment right now. If the President goes ahead with this, it ought to be President Biden's duty to get us out.


Jefferson Jersonian comments re Mark Ames "This is not to say that he does not make mistakes in the evaluation of his sources' veracity, and that his reportage may not suffer as a consequence; when working with the ofttimes dodgy information sources with whom he interacts, that is only to be expected."
I couldnn't have said it better -ec


An interesting read from Alastair Crooke on Russia, Syria and Saudi Arabia's geopolitical machinations:

Since Prince Bandar (AKA Bandar Bush) claims to control Chechen rebels, who unleashed several very grisly terrorist attacks in Russia, shouldn't he be considered a prime suspect in the chemical weapons attack in Syria, particularly since the evidence pointing to Assad is so thin?


"According to the Russian news outlet Telegrafist.org, the People’s Liberation Army dispatched the Jinggangshan amphibious dock landing ship and the vessel was seen passing through the Red Sea towards the Suez Canal, the waterway in Egypt that leads to the Mediterranean Sea and waters off the coast of Israel, Lebanon and Syria.

According to the report, the ship has not been sent to engage in any aggressive actions but is merely there to “observe” the actions of Russian and US warships. However, the Jinggangshan is equipped for combat, has conventional armaments and secondary cannons, and was utilized as part of a “show of force” in maneuvers aimed at defending the South China Sea earlier this year."


Also, here's a 56-second C-SPAN clip of Gen. Dempsey declining to add to Kerry's concluding comments at the Tuesday Senate hearing:



President Biden is exactly why Obama will never be impeached.


One way of looking at this would be as a serious expression of concern over the course of events. No doubt it is also loaded to the gills with electronic monitoring devices. They'd better watch their asses; the last time a monitoring vessel got into their neighborhood, the Israelis shot it to hell. I of course speak of the U.S.S. Liberty, the attack on which the Israelis still have to answer for. Too bad the politicos TWICE called back American warplanes from coming to that ill-fated vessel's aid. History would have been quite different I should imagine, had the responses to calls for aid been permitted to have been answered. An injustice still awaiting a genuine Naval Inquest. How long, O Lord?


Right now there iirc is a German AGI off Lebanon.

First time the German navy sent such a vessel down there, Israeli F 16 overflew the ship, dropping flares, intercepted a German helicopter and so forth.


They just can't help themselves I guess.

Bob Jackson

Er, they will be dead. Dead people seldom engage in physical activity. You may associate virginity with sex, albeit incorporeal, but they do not.


There you are: The Whitehouse has just let it be known that the case against Assad s based on 'Common Sense', not 'irrefutable evidence'.

Reminds me of the trial in the movie Idiocracy:

Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: Now prosecutor, why you think he done it?

Prosecutor: 'Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, from facebook and Youtube.

[crowd boos]

Prosecutor: I know! It's common sense! And I'm all, 'you've gotta be shittin' me!' But check this out man, judge should be like

[bangs fist on table]

Prosecutor: 'guilty!' Peace.


Thank you Col. Your statement has been picked up by many blogs and is all over the Internet.

Charles I

Could you please remind us who resigned in the run up to Iraq?

Charles I

Again, when I read "control" & "Chechens" in the same sentence i am dubious.


Col Lang-

Sir, I've been considering my comment in response to your latest appeal. As always I attempt to look at it from a strategic theory perspective.

As with your other statements, this is very much an example of how a US patriot faced with recent events should act. If we as both citizens and those of us who are (former) officers cannot rely on the US Constitution as the foundation of our form of government, what can we rely on, exactly? The "good will" of our "rulers"? Their professed "morality"? The "purity" of the various interests?

Our assumption is that the system of checks and balances is expected to not only work, but dictate the course of US action, especially in something as fundamental as the decision to wage war . . . facts are "terrible things".

If this is not the case, then are we back to Hobbes . . . is this their "final victory" as described in the last paragraph of Chapter XXIX of Leviathan?



I am not a former officer. I am a retired officer. pl


Col. Lang-

Point taken.

and sir, this thread flows so well into your next post . . .


if we didn't impeach Bush, we won't impeach Obama.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad