HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » leveymg » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »

leveymg

Profile Information

Member since: Wed May 5, 2004, 08:44 AM
Number of posts: 34,083

Journal Archives

That is just so 1984.

Smith, Smith! If you do your exercises with more enthusiasm, you will go from this 98 pound weakling:



To this Hero of Airstrip 1:






They have been laughing at us for decades.

Vote for your favorite Demoplican celebrity President


(_) Bill
(_) The Donald
(_) Hillary
(X) Ivana

NBC reported the classified docs on her server were from an "intelligence agency" not DOS

She broke the law by hosting them on her insecure private server. No getting around that.

Join the Demoplican Party. Today! Choose your favorite celebrity President. Poll.



(_) Bill
(_) The Donald
(_) Hillary
(X) Ivana

No, HRC and Petraeus championed the policy, which Obama cut off.

Yes, I blame her for being an author and a principal backer of a failed policy with catastrophic results. She was a leading advocate, not just an instrument of policies of regime change in Libya and Syria.

As a result of the failure of this policy that he had most aggressively pursued, Petraeus was fired and a few months later the President graciously accepted the resignation of the Secretary of State. It was Obama who restrained and ultimately brought this operation to a halt. The conflict within the Administration and the roles taken by Clinton and the other principals were all described in a series of articles in the WSJ and NYT. I'll dig out the links for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/panetta-speaks-to-senate-panel-on-benghazi-attack.html?_r=0
deep divisions over what to do about one of those issues — the rising violence in Syria — spilled into public view for the first time in a blunt exchange between Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and the leaders of the Pentagon.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta acknowledged that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, had supported a plan last year to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels. But it was ultimately vetoed by the White House, Mr. Panetta said, although it was developed by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state.

(. . .)

Neither Mr. Panetta nor General Dempsey explained why President Obama did not heed their recommendation. But senior American officials have said that the White House was worried about the risks of becoming more deeply involved in the Syria crisis, including the possibility that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. And with Mr. Obama in the middle of a re-election campaign, the White House rebuffed the plan, a decision that Mr. Panetta says he now accepts.

With the exception of General Dempsey, the officials who favored arming the rebels have either left the administration or, as in Mr. Panetta’s case, are about to depart. Given that turnover, it is perhaps not surprising that the details of the debate — an illustration of the degree that foreign policy decisions have been centralized in the White House — are surfacing only now. A White House spokesman declined to comment on Thursday.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html WASHINGTON — Last summer, as the fighting in Syria raged and questions about the United States’ inaction grew, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton conferred privately with David H. Petraeus, the director of the C.I.A. The two officials were joining forces on a plan to arm the Syrian resistance.

The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus presented the proposal to the White House, according to administration officials. But with the White House worried about the risks, and with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, they were rebuffed.

( . . .)

The disclosures about Mrs. Clinton’s behind-the-scenes role in Syria and Myanmar — one a setback, the other a success — offer a window into her time as a member of Mr. Obama’s cabinet. They may also be a guide to her thinking as she ponders a future run for the presidency with favorability ratings that are the highest of her career, even after her last months at the State Department were marred by the deadly attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya.

“Secretary Clinton has dramatically changed the face of U.S. foreign policy globally for the good,” said Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration. “But I wish she had been unleashed more by the White House.”

(. . .)

After Britain and France argued for intervening to defend Libya’s rebels against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mrs. Clinton played an important role in mobilizing a broad international coalition and persuading the White House to join the NATO-led operation.

But it was Syria that proved to be the most difficult test. As that country descended into civil war, the administration provided humanitarian aid to the growing flood of refugees, pushed for sanctions and sought to organize the political opposition. The United States lagged France, Britain and Persian Gulf states in recognizing that opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syria people, but by December, Mr. Obama had taken that step.

Still, rebel fighters were clamoring for weapons and training. The White House has been reluctant to arm them for fear that it would draw the United States into the conflict and raise the risk of the weapons falling into the wrong hands. Rebel extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda had faced no such constraints in securing weapons from their backers.

When Mr. Petraeus was the commander of forces in Iraq and then-Senator Clinton was serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee and preparing for her 2008 presidential bid, she had all but called him a liar for trumpeting the military gains of the troop increase ordered by President Bush. But serving together in the Obama administration, they were allies when it came to Syria, as well as on the debate over how many troops to send to Afghanistan at the beginning of the administration.

Mr. Petraeus had a background in training foreign forces from his years in Iraq, and his C.I.A. job put him in charge of covert operations. The Americans already had experience in providing nonlethal assistance to some of the rebels.


http://www.thenation.com/blog/172774/obama-opposed-syria-war-plan-clinton-petraeus-panetta-gen-dempsey Let’s give the White House and President Obama, personally, credit for blocking the hawks in his administration from going to war in Syria.

Last week, we learned that Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, now thankfully pursuing other opportunities and spending more time with their families, had cooked up a plan to arm and train the ragtag Syrian rebels, thus getting the United States directly involved in that horrible civil war.

Now we learn that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs—both of whom are about to join Clinton and Petraeus in the private sector—also backed the Clinton-Petraeus plan,

Who was against it? Obama.

Here’s how The New York Times reports the bombshell revelation, which emerged at a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing with Panetta and Dempsey, under questioning from the invariably pro-war John McCain:

Did the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?”

“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.

“You did support that,” Mr. McCain said.

“We did,” General Dempsey added.

Despite the formidable coalition of Panetta, Clinton, Petraeus, and Dempsey—and no doubt Susan Rice was in there punching, too—Obama nixed the idea.

Here's more on the burgeoning Saudi-Israeli alliance to sway US policy

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-Saudi-Arabia-admit-secret-diplomacy-for-first-time-405123

Israel and Saudi Arabia have held five secret meetings since the beginning of 2014 to discuss the common threat Iran posses to the region, it was revealed for the first time Thursday at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, according to Bloomberg.

Although the two are considered to be historic enemies, with Saudi Arabia refusing to recognize the Jewish State's right to exist, they never-the-less have engaged in a campaign of clandestine diplomacy in an effort to thwart the Islamic Republic's growing influence in the Middle East.


http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Israeli-Saudi-relations-best-kept-quiet-415758

Israel should keep its relations with Saudi Arabia as quiet as possible as it continues to explore other ways to improve relations, Prof. Joshua Teitelbaum, an expert on Saudi Arabia and the modern Middle East, told The Jerusalem Post.

“Beyond facing a similar threat from nuclear threshold Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been brought closer together by the Obama administration’s strategic decision to draw down its involvement in the Middle East by seeking a strategic balance between Sunnis and Shiites,” said Teitelbaum.

For the Obama administration, said Teitelbaum, who is an expert at Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA), there is little respect left for Saudi Arabia, which it sees as responsible, if indirectly, for 9/11 and Islamic State.

“While Iran might support the terrorist Hezbollah and Bashar Assad, Sunni extremists have profited from Saudi support.”


Do you need more? I could do this all day, if you like.

The Israeli role in US politics is well known. Here's more about the Saudis and the Clintons (NYT):



http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/world/clinton-and-his-ties-to-the-influential-saudis.html

Clinton and His Ties to the Influential Saudis
By TIM WEINER
Published: August 23, 1993

The conventional wisdom in Washington in the election last year was that George Bush was the great friend of Saudi Arabia -- after all, he went to war to defend the kingdom.

It turns out that Bill Clinton was hardly unknown to the Saudis.

One of President Clinton's college classmates at Georgetown University was Prince Turki bin Feisal. Today Prince Turki is the head of the Saudi Arabian intelligence service. The two stay in touch, an Administration official said.

As Governor of Arkansas, Mr. Clinton worked hard to secure a multimillion-dollar Saudi donation to a Middle Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas, said Bernard Madison, the dean of the university's Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences.

The discussions about the donation began in 1989. They involved Americans with ties to both the Saudis and Mr. Clinton; officials of Stephens Group Inc., the Arkansas business empire that has provided crucial financial assistance to Mr. Clinton; and David Edwards, an investment banker in Little Rock who has Saudi clients and is a friend of Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Clinton's efforts included a 1991 meeting with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador, the dean said.

According to Mr. Madison, the Saudis did not give their first donation to the university -- a $3.5 million gift -- until last summer.

Mr. Madison said: "The gulf war intervened. It was put on hold. They didn't have a lot of money."

One week after he was elected President, Mr. Clinton discussed the donation as part of a telephone conversation he had with Saudi Arabia's monarch, King Fahd, according to a spokesman for Mr. Clinton.

Another $20 million arrived in February, a few weeks after President Clinton's inauguration, Mr. Madison said.

They rule by proxy vote through the corporations and politicians they purchased

a controlling interest in. Money is the permanent establishment, and they have bought everything of real value in the west. That includes the GOP and most of the Democratic Party, whether you and they know it or not. The next President knows it, as did the mentor who brought her and her husband into al-Yamamah. Google the last word, it's Arabic for the name of the slush fund set up to buy US and British politicians with oil sales to the west and reverse arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

And, oh yes, they're business partners with the Israeli right-wing. They also exercise their share of influence. Working together, they stand a fairly good chance of succeeding in their separate plans to put us out of the way.

Response to:
http://off-guardian.org/2015/12/18/historic-new-harpers-article-exposes-who-controls-america/

"To boil it all down to the essence: The fundamentalist-Sunni royal family of the Sauds have bought the highest levels of the U.S. government in order to control U.S. foreign policies, especially the ongoing wars to take down the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and ultimately (they hope) of Russia itself, which latter nation has allied itself instead with Shiia countries. The controlling entities behind American foreign policies since at least the late 1970s have been the Saud family and the Sauds’ subordinate Arabic aristocracies in Qatar (the al-Thanis), Kuwait (the al-Sabahs), Turkey (the Tuktik Erdoğans, a new royalty), and UAE (its six royal families: the main one, the al-Nahyans in Abu Dhabi; the other five: the al-Maktoums in Dubai, al-Qasimis in Sharjah, al-Nuaimis in Ajman, al-Mualla Ums in Quwain, and al-Sharqis in Fujairah). Other Saudi-dominated nations — though they’re not oil-rich (more like Turkey in this regard) — are Pakistan and Afghanistan."

This is Hersh's real story - regime change over stopping terrorism - and this names the source.

The JCS were right to pushback against the covert policy of arming the Jihadi opposition initiated by CIA Director Petraeus and Secretary of State Clinton being pursued at the time.

Hersh writes that a highly classified 2013 Defense Intelligence Agency/Joint Chiefs of Staff report on Syria forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to "chaos" and possibly to Islamist extremists taking over Syria.

Hersh reports that Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, told him that his agency sent a "constant stream" of warnings to the "civilian leadership" about the dire consequences of ousting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The DIA's reporting "got enormous pushback" from the Obama administration, Hersh quotes Flynn as saying. "I felt that they did not want to hear the truth."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/12/27/Seymour-Hersh-report-on-Syria-White-House-knew-US-was-arming-Islamic-State/6951451232210/


The report, published in the Jan. 7, 2016 edition of the London Review of Books, relies heavily on an anonymous former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Hersh writes that the adviser told him the DIA/Joint Chiefs report took a "dim view" of the Obama administration's insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups and found that the covert U.S. program to arm and support those "moderate" rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, which then morphed the program into an "across-the-board technical, arms and logistical program for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State."

"The assessment was bleak: there was no viable 'moderate' opposition to Assad, and the U.S. was arming extremists," Hersh wrote.

In October, the Pentagon announced that it was discontinuing its program to train and equip moderate rebels in Syria, saying the program cost $500 million and only succeeded in training a "handful" of recruits.

In November, however, the CIA increased its shipments of arms to rebels in Syria, joining with U.S. allies in challenging Russia and Iran's involvement in Syria in support of the Assad regime.

U.S. officials, according to a Nov. 4 article in The Wall Street Journal, said the Obama administration is pursuing a dual-track strategy in Syria, to keep military pressure on Assad while U.S. diplomats "see if they can ease him from power through negotiations."

The White House has not responded directly to the allegations raised in the article in the London Review of Books.

Its author, Seymour Hersh, won a Pulitzer Prize in 1970 for his reporting on the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War and has continued to write on national security for many newspapers and magazines, including The New Yorker. He was widely criticized for his The Killing of Osama bin Laden report that accused President Barack Obama and his administration of lying about the circumstances surrounding the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011. Many media establishments, intelligence analysts and officials, including the White House, rejected the claim.


No disclosed evidence that Assad gave command orders. Quite the opposite: intercepts of phone

calls that night recorded officials at the Syrian Defence Ministry freaking out when it learned that a chemical weapons attack had been launched. This was overheard by western intelligence analysts. After the fact, the most senior part of the Syrian military demanded who had ordered the attack. Here's the source, and it wasn't RT:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/27/exclusive-intercepted-calls-prove-syrian-army-used-nerve-gas-u-s-spies-say/

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It’s unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military’s rationale for launching the strike — if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don’t know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty fucking stupid."


The FP report that appears at the site has been since edited. The original wording added this important piece of information as reported elsewhere, such as this AFP wire report:


'Panicked phone calls' between Syrian defence official and chemical weapons head after attack

Agence France-Presse

August 29, 2013
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/panicked-phone-calls-between-syrian-defence-official-and-chemical-weapons-head-after-attack

WASHINGTON // US intelligence services overheard a Syrian defence ministry official in "panicked phone calls with the leader of a chemical weapons unit" after last week's deadly chemical attack, Foreign Policy magazine has reported.

"Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at Syria's ministry of defence exchanged panicked phone calls with leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people," the report on Tuesday said.

"Those conversations were overheard by US intelligence services," the magazine said in a statement. "That is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar Al Assad regime – and why the US military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days."

Also, there were contemporaneous reports of rebel groups obtaining chemical precursors in Turkey. Again, not RT:

There also was never a followup report from rebels caught in Turkey with chems...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22720647

"Mr Cos did however say that unknown chemicals had been found and were being investigated."


AND

Turkey arrests Syrian Nusra Front militants -media
May 30, 2013|Reuters

ANKARA, May 30 (Reuters) - Turkish authorities have arrested
a group of Syria's al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front militants who
allegedly had been planning an attack inside Turkey and were in
possession of the nerve agent sarin, local media reported on
Thursday.

...

The 12 Nusra members were arrested in the southern city of
Adana, some 100 km (60 miles) from Syria, during raids at their
addresses where police uncovered 2 kg (4.5 pounds) of sarin as
well as heavy weapons, Taraf, Cumhuriyet and Aksam, as well as
several other dailies reported.

The men, who were allegedly planning a large attack in the
city, were formally detained by Adana's top court, the papers
reported, although it was not clear on what charges. The papers
did not reveal their sources.

...

Nusra is one of the most effective forces fighting President
Bashar al-Assad and last month pledged allegiance to al Qaeda
leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The U.S. State Department designated
Nusra as a terrorist organisation in December.

Experts have long said Nusra is receiving support from al
Qaeda-linked militants in neighbouring Iraq. The group claimed
responsibility for deadly bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, and
its fighters have joined other Syrian rebel brigades.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-30/news/sns-rt-syria-crisisturkeyl3n0eb2uy-20130530_1_nusra-front-chemical-weapons-jonathon-burch
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »