Monday, January 9, 2017

All else is fluff.

Stated succinctly:
The reign of terror imposed on eastern Aleppo was the creation of Western states covertly sponsoring extremists to prosecute their criminal designs for regime change in Syria.[1]
There may be 100 reasons why the Syrian regime may be a blight on the planet (with emphasis on the words "may be"). However, the only reason offered by Obama and his toads is "Assad must go." As persuasive reasons for deposing someone and killing hundreds of thousands of his countryman go, that lacks a certain something.

This disgraceful episode in our nation's history – our alliance with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, al Qaida, and ISIS in a pointless war – is instructive for what it teaches about

  1. the debased morals of our disgusting Treason Class,
  2. Republican cowardice in the face of unconstitutional and aggressive war, and
  3. what a craven, lying, lickspittle legacy press we have in the U.S.

Notes
[1] "West Spins Again to Sabotage Syria Ceasefire." By Finian Cunningham, Strategic Culture, 1/5/17.

4 comments:

  1. Obama has done what no previous president has done: He's combined an ultra-interventionist foreign policy with an absolute refusal ever to prevail, whether in warfare or at the negotiating table.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find it interesting you wrote the three points as if the republicans are not part of the Treason Class.

    We shall soon get clear confirmation one way or the other when they have to deal with Trump. Sadly, historical precedence indicates they will still be the spineless little jelly fish have been since at least the early 1990's.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That is utterly dismaying. As proof of which, consider that Obama's CIA is supporting the Kurds (who are allies of the regime) and his DOD is supporting al-Qaida, ISIS, and the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Wisconsin snipe, the moderate rebels (who are all regime opponents).

    On top of which it's clear beyond all argument that Assad is exactly the kind of national leader who's needed in the Middle East. Exactly. But Obama has marked him for removal and has not one clue what will replace him.

    What will replace him would be (and would have been) ISIS but for Russian intervention, which result, given the amount of willful blindness on the part of Obama, is his precise intention. As I like to say, people intend the natural consequences of their acts.

    So Russia saved Syria from a terrible fate that Obama worked feverishly to bring and now Obama and the intelligence agencies want us to believe that it too is some kind of a malign presence in the world. It's especially malign because it took reasonable defensive measures when its vital Black Sea Fleet was threatened by the regime change engineered by Obama, again for reasons that are obscure to people of normal intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon, that's certainly not my view.

    I've elsewhere remarked on The Great Stall when Boehner did absolutely nothing after getting a majority in the House. Same with the Great Debt Ceiling Face Off. The Republican response was amateurish and weak. Had it been a boxing match, I'd have said they threw the fight. Same with vote fraud. They've had years to get on top of what it takes to ensure clean elections and lay a few traps for shameless Dems. No such thing. Each election it's the same old deer-in-the-headlights deal. "You mean there was vote fraud in this last election?" It's clear that Motor Voter and the lack of a requirement to produce ID or dip a finger in purple ink are huge problems but the never say boo.

    I don't quite know what the payoff for Republicans is to be phlegmatic about vote fraud. But it's a monstrous disservice to the people not to do battle on the issue.

    Republican failure to aggressively pursue impeachment is, if not treason, enabling of those who do give aid and comfort to our enemies, i.e., officials who betray their aoaths. Ginsburg should have been impeached for telling that Egyptian fellow not to follow the U.S. Constitution when looking for guidance on what kind of constitution to have. A Supreme Court justice who thinks our Constitution is less valuable than the S. African one? Bizarre.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.