Margaret, for some reason that bitly url leads to my gmail account which I never use. Could you please post the actual URL for the article you are referring to?
I find it interesting that as we marched to war with Iraq we were offered all sorts of evidence, much of which later was shown to be wrong, that justified what our government wanted to do. We are now engaged with a coalition bombing another country with a stated goal of returning the legitimate leader to power and stopping Iranian expansion in the Arab Peninsula.
As of this point, I have yet to see any members of our government even attempting to supply any sort of proof, real or otherwise, that supports the contention that the Iranians are the force behind the Houthis or that they are even giving them any sort of real material support.
Nevermind the fact that the other rational behind our involvement is dubious at best. Hadi was picked by the GCC and was elected in a vote where he was the only candidate. The ballot gave you just one option, to vote yes. There wasnt not an option to vote "no" or were Yemenis given the ability to write in a candidate. Their choice was, vote yes or stay home. Four years, after a two year term he was still in power. Resigned at one point....then said he didnt mean it.
It is amazing the lack of a conversation that is happening nationally behind this.
I still read the NyTimes whenever I can pull a free copy or parts of copies out of someone's recycling bin. Paul Krugman supported Free Trade in general and NAFTA in particular, which I held against him at the time and still do.
I had not heard the name Gerald Celente until this moment which shows how narrow my field of focus can be, apparently. And here I thought I had invented for myself the word "presstitute" one time. I must have picked it up from the general cultural ether.
I will still sit here and claim I invented the word "journaliarist", unless someone can be shown to have invented that one, too.
The Kissinger-Schultz (April 8) article in the WSJ seems reasonable enough on the surface, and it may be that some of the drawbacks they enumerate about inspections should be considered. The bottom line: What can Kerry push? What will the Iranians concede? Some of their points underline the obvious: No such agreement is perfect.
Back during the cold war, there would have been no way the Navy would ever have put a carrier in a body of water that small. It would have given any aggressors a chance to shoot fish in a barrel.
There are also the opposite moves to have the police video everything (body cameras). That becomes public record. Who controls what video of stops, searches or just general conduct; especially for those who are neither charged nor convicted of any crime. Another bad idea.
seems to me that the grouping of forces that I mentioned before may allow the Abadi government to more or less clear the road to Mosul but Anbar and IS held Syria are beyond anyone's grasp at present. and, Anbar provides an excellent north-south route from S. Arabia. This is worth hanging on to from both the Saudi and IS POVs. pl
"An odd story out of the Air Force: Maj. Gen. James Post III has been disciplined for suggesting that airmen who provided Congress with dissenting viewpoints on the phaseout of the A-10 Thunderbird "Warthog" were committing treason. From Stars and Stripes:
Post was issued a letter of reprimand and is moving from his position following the statements Jan. 10 to about 300 airmen at a Weapons and Tactics Review Board meeting at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The board was discussing the controversial retirement of the A-10, which has sparked a pushback from Congress and infantry troops and pilots who believe it has unique capabilities on the battlefield.
The Arizona Daily Independent originally reported Post's comments. “If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it," he was quoted as saying at the Jan. 10 meeting, "anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason.” (For the record, Post is incorrect: All servicemembers have the legal right to communicate freely with congressional representatives through both official and private channels.) The Air Force has said Post's comment was made in a spirit of hyperbole, but that characterization is reportedly disputed by others who heard him speak."
Well Hillary has announced but Jeb has not. They will be the choices of their parties IMO whatever comes since both both parties want to win badly and they will have the deepest resources. But hey events can intervene to change the future!
Wondering who they will bring in as their appointees?
Clinton will likely be the nominee for President, even if she's probably not the first choice for many commentators on this blog.
I'm very interested to see who the Vice Presidential candidate for the Dems will be. Clinton will surely want to pick someone who will not challenge her ideas and impulses. Can the party convince her that this is exactly what she will need in a VP?
As potential Dem candidates for VP What do people think here think of Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren and Patty Murray?
NB: Our "closest ally," has signed on. http://bit.ly/1Po2AJL
Posted by: Margaret Steinfels | 09 April 2015 at 10:22 AM
Margaret, for some reason that bitly url leads to my gmail account which I never use. Could you please post the actual URL for the article you are referring to?
Posted by: Valissa | 09 April 2015 at 11:46 AM
Fred, amen on that but there are already moves afoot to criminalize taking video or pictures of the police. That is a very bad idea.
Posted by: BabelFish | 09 April 2015 at 12:57 PM
I find it interesting that as we marched to war with Iraq we were offered all sorts of evidence, much of which later was shown to be wrong, that justified what our government wanted to do. We are now engaged with a coalition bombing another country with a stated goal of returning the legitimate leader to power and stopping Iranian expansion in the Arab Peninsula.
As of this point, I have yet to see any members of our government even attempting to supply any sort of proof, real or otherwise, that supports the contention that the Iranians are the force behind the Houthis or that they are even giving them any sort of real material support.
Nevermind the fact that the other rational behind our involvement is dubious at best. Hadi was picked by the GCC and was elected in a vote where he was the only candidate. The ballot gave you just one option, to vote yes. There wasnt not an option to vote "no" or were Yemenis given the ability to write in a candidate. Their choice was, vote yes or stay home. Four years, after a two year term he was still in power. Resigned at one point....then said he didnt mean it.
It is amazing the lack of a conversation that is happening nationally behind this.
Posted by: Abu Sinan | 09 April 2015 at 01:21 PM
Babak,
I didn't notice you were replying on the Kissinger-Schultz piece.
With them, I'm not so sure - for Lebanese, Sunni-Arab and Israeli commenters - rather more so.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 09 April 2015 at 01:43 PM
Cee,
I still read the NyTimes whenever I can pull a free copy or parts of copies out of someone's recycling bin. Paul Krugman supported Free Trade in general and NAFTA in particular, which I held against him at the time and still do.
Posted by: different clue | 09 April 2015 at 02:44 PM
Ishmael Zechariah,
I had not heard the name Gerald Celente until this moment which shows how narrow my field of focus can be, apparently. And here I thought I had invented for myself the word "presstitute" one time. I must have picked it up from the general cultural ether.
I will still sit here and claim I invented the word "journaliarist", unless someone can be shown to have invented that one, too.
Posted by: different clue | 09 April 2015 at 02:47 PM
Sorry, the bitly link doesn't work. Here's the full link to LobeLog:
http://www.lobelog.com/israel-joins-chinese-bank-defies-u-s/
Posted by: Margaret Steinfels | 09 April 2015 at 03:57 PM
The Kissinger-Schultz (April 8) article in the WSJ seems reasonable enough on the surface, and it may be that some of the drawbacks they enumerate about inspections should be considered. The bottom line: What can Kerry push? What will the Iranians concede? Some of their points underline the obvious: No such agreement is perfect.
Posted by: Margaret Steinfels | 09 April 2015 at 04:06 PM
Two more Saudi policemen shot dead in Riyadh:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/08/us-saudi-security-idUSKBN0MZ0W220150408
Posted by: mike | 09 April 2015 at 04:13 PM
Back during the cold war, there would have been no way the Navy would ever have put a carrier in a body of water that small. It would have given any aggressors a chance to shoot fish in a barrel.
Posted by: mike | 09 April 2015 at 04:17 PM
The 82 refers to my year of birth. Though I served in the US military, it was not with the Army or the 82 Airborne.
How do you see ISIS's fortunes playing out in Syria and Anbar province right now?
Posted by: Fred82 | 09 April 2015 at 10:21 PM
That's for sure. The Iranians have had Silkworms for a long time. This makes no sense.
Posted by: BabelFish | 09 April 2015 at 11:26 PM
".... the drawbacks they enumerate about inspections should be considered."
That can only be addressed if Iran is occupied by a foreign military force.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 10 April 2015 at 09:09 AM
Depends on grouping does it not?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 10 April 2015 at 10:27 AM
BabeFish,
There are also the opposite moves to have the police video everything (body cameras). That becomes public record. Who controls what video of stops, searches or just general conduct; especially for those who are neither charged nor convicted of any crime. Another bad idea.
Posted by: Fred | 10 April 2015 at 10:44 AM
fred82
seems to me that the grouping of forces that I mentioned before may allow the Abadi government to more or less clear the road to Mosul but Anbar and IS held Syria are beyond anyone's grasp at present. and, Anbar provides an excellent north-south route from S. Arabia. This is worth hanging on to from both the Saudi and IS POVs. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 10 April 2015 at 11:49 AM
Some news on our old stalwart, the A-10:
"An odd story out of the Air Force: Maj. Gen. James Post III has been disciplined for suggesting that airmen who provided Congress with dissenting viewpoints on the phaseout of the A-10 Thunderbird "Warthog" were committing treason. From Stars and Stripes:
Post was issued a letter of reprimand and is moving from his position following the statements Jan. 10 to about 300 airmen at a Weapons and Tactics Review Board meeting at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The board was discussing the controversial retirement of the A-10, which has sparked a pushback from Congress and infantry troops and pilots who believe it has unique capabilities on the battlefield.
The Arizona Daily Independent originally reported Post's comments. “If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it," he was quoted as saying at the Jan. 10 meeting, "anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason.” (For the record, Post is incorrect: All servicemembers have the legal right to communicate freely with congressional representatives through both official and private channels.) The Air Force has said Post's comment was made in a spirit of hyperbole, but that characterization is reportedly disputed by others who heard him speak."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/10/air_force_general_treason_comments_reprimand_issues.html
Posted by: Charles I | 10 April 2015 at 04:06 PM
journamalist works for me
Posted by: dilbert dogbert | 12 April 2015 at 03:23 PM
dilbert dogbert,
We can all try many different words for it and see which ones catch on or not. Journamalist, journaliarist, presstitute, and maybe others.
As they used to say in the World of Advertising . . . " lets just throw some jello at the top of the flagpole and see who salutes what sticks."
Posted by: different clue | 12 April 2015 at 05:16 PM
Is the failure to translate a foreign language book of significance the equivalent of BOOK BURNING?
When was MEIN KAMPF translated from the German into English and/or Hebrew?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 13 April 2015 at 09:21 AM
Well Hillary has announced but Jeb has not. They will be the choices of their parties IMO whatever comes since both both parties want to win badly and they will have the deepest resources. But hey events can intervene to change the future!
Wondering who they will bring in as their appointees?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 13 April 2015 at 09:25 AM
Clinton will likely be the nominee for President, even if she's probably not the first choice for many commentators on this blog.
I'm very interested to see who the Vice Presidential candidate for the Dems will be. Clinton will surely want to pick someone who will not challenge her ideas and impulses. Can the party convince her that this is exactly what she will need in a VP?
As potential Dem candidates for VP What do people think here think of Jim Webb, Elizabeth Warren and Patty Murray?
(I'm not an American.)
Posted by: crf | 14 April 2015 at 10:12 PM
Webb or O'Malley may well be on HC's ticket.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 15 April 2015 at 09:59 AM
And IMO HC is the default choice for the DEMS.
She increasingly appears to me as signaling that she is a reluctant candidate.
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 15 April 2015 at 10:01 AM