Displaying posts published in

2016

Turkey’s Dangerous Moves in Iraq by Burak Bekdil

Turkey’s primary concern is not to drive ISIS out of Mosul but to make it a “Sunni-controlled city” after ISIS has been pushed out. And this ambition jeopardizes the planned assault on ISIS.

Turkey’s pretext is that its troops are in Iraq to “fight ISIS.” That does not convince anyone.

In a span of five years Turkey has had serious political and military tensions with several countries in its vicinity: Israel, Syria, Russia, Jordan, Egypt, Cyprus and Greece. Most recently, Iraq has also joined the club of hostilities surrounding Turkey.

Despite the Iraqi government’s vehement requests that Turkey withdraw its troops in Iraq, Ankara shrugs it off and says it will maintain its military presence in the neighboring country for “Iraq’s stability.” What a nice neighborly gesture! Behind the Turkish indifference lies sectarian concerns and ambitions.

On October 1, Turkey’s parliament extended the mandate of Turkish troops deployed in Iraqi territory by one more year. The troops are stationed near Bashiqa in northern Iraq — as unwanted guests. That sparked a row with Baghdad and may further complicate the cold sectarian war between the Sunnis in the region, supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and their Shiite enemies, supported by Iran and the Shiite-controlled government in Baghdad.

Trump, Reality and the GOP A Pelosi House is becoming a real election possibility.

Paul Ryan told House Republicans Monday that he won’t defend Donald Trump’s campaign or his other behavior, and the Speaker advised Members to do what is best for their districts. This is not a new position so much as the latest restatement of a familiar strategy: to limit the 2016 electoral damage and preserve the GOP majority as a check on whoever wins the Presidency.

Defending down-ballot races isn’t the most inspiring goal, and it won’t satisfy those who want the moral validation of condemning Mr. Trump and all his works. But Republican leaders have real institutional obligations, and these include serving the country when their political choices are less than ideal.

At the current moment that means preventing Hillary Clinton from returning to Washington with a Democratic Senate and perhaps even House. One irony of this election is that as Mrs. Clinton has focused on disqualifying Mr. Trump’s character and temperament, she has also released about 112,000-odd words of little-noticed policy proposals that a Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be happy to rubber-stamp.

A new burst of liberal legislation could include a “public option” for ObamaCare that would be one more giant leap toward government-run health care. Energy from fossil fuels would become stranded assets. Government by and for the regulatory state would accelerate, and the Supreme Court would be lost to judicial conservatives for a generation. A final irony is that a Pelosi-Schumer Congress would readily pass the “amnesty” immigration bill that has animated Mr. Trump’s candidacy.
This prospect ought to concentrate Republican minds because House and Senate races are becoming more competitive as Mr. Trump slips. In the Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll published Monday, voters favored the generic Democratic ballot in Congress by seven points, 49% to 42%. Last month the spread was plus-three.

The same survey also shows the Trump predicament for GOP leaders. Some 67% of Republican voters said Congress should continue to support Mr. Trump, while 14% say they should call on him to drop out and 9% say they can’t support him personally. Mrs. Clinton is nonetheless widening her leads in swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio.

The question for Congressional Republicans is how to distance themselves from Mr. Trump when he says the indefensible without alienating his loyal core. Like it or not, a 45% plurality of GOP primary voters nominated Mr. Trump, and they knowingly put him on the ballot because they concluded that his unconventional political profile was a risk worth taking.

That choice may not have been wise, but the GOP can’t renounce democracy and win elections. A successful party must acknowledge the voters that Mr. Trump has inspired and the legitimate problems he has identified. These voters aren’t “irredeemable” in Mrs. Clinton’s phrase; most are ordinary Americans frustrated by their diminished economic prospects. CONTINUE AT SITE

Megyn Kelly calls Juanita Broaddrick a Liar By Daniel John Sobieski

In the post-debate analysis of Trump/s spot-on rebuttal of Team Clinton’s exploitation of the 2005 Trump “locker room” remarks, Megyn Kelly sparred with Trump manager Kelly Anne Conway over Trump’s trotting out of some of Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” in a pre-debate press conference. In what will undoubtedly be Team Clinton’s defense, Megyn Kelly claimed that Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick denied any rape in a 1998 affidavit.

Close, but no cigar, Megyn. The story is a little more complicated than that. It was not that her story was false as Megyn Kelly implied. Like many rape victims, Broaddrick felt no one would believe her and she simply wanted to put it behind her and not be forced to relive it, particularly in any legal setting: she resisted interviews, fearing no one would believe her charge against a popular President. As Breitbart reported in 2014:

In January of 1999, a month after Clinton’s impeachment by the House — and in the midst of the Senate trial grappling with whether Monica Lewinsky should testify — Broaddrick finally agreed to meet NBC’s Lisa Myers for an interview… Broaddrick’s decision to go forward with an interview came after “she contemplated all the layers of tawdry rumor about her that had multiplied in the wake of the other, larger scandal involving the president.”…

Broaddrick continued to refuse to cave to the media’s requests for interviews. In 1997, she was subpoenaed by Jones’ attorneys, yet she continued to deny the assault.

“I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life,” she told Myers. “I didn’t want to go through it again.”

Broaddrick still refused to come forward when Kathleen Willey accused the President of unwanted sexual advances, saying that she “wasn’t brave enough to do it.”

When Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s office approached her in April of 1998, however, Broaddrick finally agreed to provide the details of Clinton’s alleged sexual assault, saying she feared lying to a federal grand jury. Starr would also grant her immunity from prosecution for perjury….

Starr never pursued Broaddrick’s allegations, however, because he was investigating charges of obstruction of justice against Clinton. Since Broaddrick was not alleging that the President urged her to lie, her allegations of the assault never went forward.

Broaddrick feared the retaliation of Team Clinton as well as the glare of a disbelieving media. Res she signed an affidavit denying the rape, again trying to avoid being forced to relive the horrible experience. But she told Starr and his office the affidavit was false. Starr didn’t pursue the rape story not because it was false, but because it was not part of his obstruction of justice investigation.

At the Trump press conference, Broaddrick, tired of being accused of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and afraid that her attacker would once again occupy the White House with the woman who orchestrated the attacks on Bill Clinton’s “bimbo eruptions”, repeated her accusation:

The Art of Neglecting Veterans By Joanna Rosamond see note please

THE VA’S SCURRILOUS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN EXPOSED BY OPEN THE BOOKS…CHECK OUT THEIR WEBSITE: http://www.openthebooks.com/about_us/ And http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_snapshot_oversight_report_-_the_va_scandal_two_years_later/

The Department of Veteran Affairs has as its mission statement:

To fulfill President Lincoln´s promise: “To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan” by serving and honoring the men and women who are America´s Veterans.

How does this lead the VA to go on art shopping spree while our Veterans’ life span is dramatically reduced by inhuman living conditions and lack of medical care? While the department worries about overpayments to ex-soldiers and scrupulously “saves” millions of dollars on benefits, it seems that blowing seven figures on “artwork” can do no harm.

The VA Santa forgot about gifts such as food and shelter, yet splurged on a 27 foot artificial Christmas tree ($21,000 only) for our homeless Veterans to admire al fresco. More than half a million dollar rock sculptures are somehow necessary in a facility for blind Veterans and an army of ´´art consultants´´ is allegedly vital for VA´s transformation.

The $ 1 billion over budget Aurora facility for example, simply could not do without Brazilian wood and “a glass concourse the size of a football field,” not to mention the indispensable 70-foot-high glass walls.

The enormous budget and lack of accountability have certainly helped Secretary McDonald to hone his decoration skills. The VA Martha Stewart wannabe’s creative freedom and aesthetic appetite have clearly increased from his P&G days when he was reduced to boasting about empty drawers in his office and horsing around with a weird Japanese stick.

Secretary McDonald seemed unfazed by his September 28th subpoena and artfully skipped the topic of Denver Titanic and art expenditures, craftily turning over 18 of 71 required items of evidence.

Rightly angered, Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans´ Affairs demanded answers and stated:

“We simply will not tolerate VA’s attempts to keep information related to its wasteful art expenditures and the biggest construction failure in VA history shrouded in secrecy. Sec. McDonald must immediately comply with the terms of this subpoena.”

Well, it would be about time to stop pampering Secretary McDonald with Hillary Clinton-like legal privileges; until now there are not only answers but questions which are missing.

How comes that VA could afford Blue Eclipse $250 000 hanging bubbles piece of art, while neglecting burials and leaving bodies of our Veterans to decompose?

Steve Kates Dirty Donald and Sunshine Conservatives

This US election is not about who has lived the most blameless life. It is about who can best protect our collective interests. Trump is a vulgarian, no doubt about it, but of the two presidential contenders he is the only one who grasps that the West is in peril.
“These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer blogger and the sunshine conservative will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

This has been a fearfully clarifying US election. There are people who declare themselves on the right side of politics, who are in truth sham defenders of freedom and our way of life, and who will be forever shunned by those of us who stood for saving the American Republic and the Western world at this moment of great peril.

The American election will determine the fate of the West. An America with open borders, unprepared, unwilling and unable to defend our freedoms from predators of every kind, from Islamic terrorists, from economic vandals, from those who masquerade their profound ignorance as concern for the environment — it is from these we must defend ourselves against or our way of life will be lost. The American Republic as it has been since 1776 will disappear. We will live to see our own fall of Rome.

Sunshine conservatives: those who pretend to represent freedom, individual rights and personal responsibility, but who refuse to stand with the only person who could make a difference. They are people whom history will recognise as the enemies of freedom, who refused to stand for the right when the moment arrived. It is Trump alone, the most improbable candidate in American political history, who provides even this sliver of hope. He is elected or Hillary is elected. There is no other possible outcome.

The mounting hostility among those supposedly on his own side is a disgrace. The array of enemies who have been uncovered from within what is nominally his own side of politics has demonstrated, better than anything else might have, that the Republican Party as it has become is a rotting curse on everything it is supposed to represent.

Those who stand with Hillary in this dark hour will have revealed they cannot be trusted and their counsel is without value. They are enemies of freedom. If you support Hillary Clinton in this election, nothing you write and say will from this time forward be worth the slightest attention. Your judgements will have been revealed as eternally worthless.

Steve Kates No Sex, Please, She’s Skittish

The second presidential debate was a Trump victory, no doubt about it, even though the timely leaking of his “locker room tape” should have given his opponent a clear advantage. Hillary’s problem is that she can’t go there, not with that satyr of a husband in the wings
We know who doesn’t want Trump to win. Hillary for one, along with the Democrats in general, the infamous 47% of tax-hoovers (who have probably grown to around 55% by now), to which, strangely, you can add many, if not most, of the wealthiest financial institutions across the world. There is then the media, and not just the journalists and reporters but the owners who are all-in for Hillary. And there’s a large proportion of the Republican Party which must include the #NeverTrumps who are the supposedly right-side conservative writers, bloggers and columnists, but who are part of the political establishment with no obvious allegiance to small government and the preservation of the American Republic.

And, of course, there are the dead citizens and non-dead non-citizens who will also be lining up to vote her in, along with those who vote early and often. Not to mention those who will vote for her because she is a woman irrespective of any other considerations whatsoever.

Formidable, almost impossible odds facing Donald Trump, in other words. Even after a flawless presentation against his Obama-clone opponent, in which he took Hillary apart despite each and every effort by the laughably “impartial” moderators, the bad news is that Donald Trump remains no better than 50-50 to win. But that is also the good news. He has not yet lost and might yet emerge victorious.

And why that is so is because he represents the last chance for the United States to save itself, and approximately 51% of the voting American public know it.

The supposed killer issue was a 2005 tape made of Trump discussing in crude terms his approach to women. And possibly in anyone else’s hands, this would have been the death blow it may still turn out to be. But for Hillary Clinton, married to a genuine sexual predator, this is an issue that can only be used carefully, as the blowback is so enormous. Whatever Trump has done is as nothing in comparison with what Bill Clinton has done, who was protected by Hillary in quieting the many and various “bimbo eruptions” (her term). I regret to have to deal with this, but since you’d have to have been born before 1980 to have an active memory of any of it. I will deal with only one, the story of Paula Jones, and I will include it only at the end.

I find all this repulsive, and the Paula Jones story is the least disturbing among the stories that surfaced at the time, and it is plenty disturbing since it was only one instance of what must have been nuch more common at the time. What is more repulsive is listening to others go on about Trump, as if Clinton were not orders of magnitude worse. But what is actually significant is that bringing that tape to light has enraged Donald Trump so that we ended up with the single most devastating, one-sided debate in American political history. With Bill’s past once again in everyone’s minds, Hillary could not truly exploit the tape to the full extent she might. Trump’s was a cold anger, but it was devastating.

The New World Order By Herbert London

President, London Center for Policy Researchhttp://www.londoncenter.org/

Recently the Russian military force deployed an advanced anti-missile system and sophisticated radars over Syria. In doing so, Russia and its allies in Iran and Hezbollah realize the ability of the U.S. to assist the rebel groups in Aleppo is severely limited. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, may not know what Aleppo is, but for anyone following current events this city of 250,000 is now a “killing field.”

Russian bombs have converted this “hold out” city of Sunnis into the contemporary Cologne of World War II. And all that Secretary Kerry can say is we will cancel further talks with the Russians. A U.N. aid convoy was bombed during the so-called ceasefire and there was barely a murmur of disapproval from the international press corps. Russian forces are engaged in a blitzkrieg – all out destruction of those rebels opposed to Assad. Admittedly some of those in the opposition are ISIS supporters, but Russian bombs are intended for any group opposed to Assad.

Since the civil war began in 2011 twenty-three million Syrians have been displaced. Many are “temporary” residents in Lebanon, Iraq and Libya. Many have crossed the Mediterranean into Europe, altering the continent for the foreseeable future. As noticeable as the demographic shift in Europe, is the indisputable fact that Russia has used the civil war in Syria to become the “strong horse” in the eastern Mediterranean. Not only have the Russians reinforced their naval facility in Tartus, they have built a major air base in Khmeimim and an airport in Latakia. These military installations not only check possible Sixth Fleet intervention, but now challenge NATO’s hold on its southern flank.

There came a time, only a decade ago, when Israel had regional air superiority. That claim can certainly be questioned today. Israel may be able to defend herself against most threats, but when Russian air power is put into the equation and the U.S. sits on the sidelines accepting the new world order, threat assessments have changed.

With Shimon Peres’ death, Israel lost one of its founders and spiritual leaders. He was also Israel’s primary dreamer, a person who with his final breath believed that peace could be achieved in the Middle East through a broad based economic development program. At some point his dream may be realized, but not now. President Obama’s appeasement orientation has made life in Israel precarious. A tilt to Iran through the lifting of sanctions and financial assistance has given Shia leaders the resources to pursue their imperial aspirations in the region. Those aspirations include the arming of Hezbollah with missiles- many quite sophisticated- that can reach every Israeli population center. Iran has engaged in saber rattling, but its attention is presently on Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. But that will change, and when it does Israel must be prepared. It is, of course, one thing to oppose Iranian air assets, but quite another matter to defend against Russian aircraft. This explains why President Netanyahu has spent so much time with Vladimir Putin. Israel recognizes the “strong horse” as well as the disappearing horse.

Open letter response to The Washington Post by Matthew Tyrmand

MATTHEW TYRMAND IS A JOURNALIST BASED IN POLAND AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OPEN THE BOOKS….RSK
To the Editorial Board of the Washington Post:

This past Friday evening you posted an editorial under “The Post’s View” entitled “Donald Trump is normalizing bigotry.” In this post you utilized my Breitbart column (“WaPo’s Anne Applebaum Embarks on Kremlin-Style Disinformation Offensive Vs. The Antii-Globalist Right”) to give credence to the thesis in your post’s title. The column I posted earlier in the week at Breitbart.com exposed some of the lesser known cross currents (for non-Poles) of recent Polish political history and your columnist’s (Anne Applebaum) connection to the previous government.

As I know the editorial board is aware, Mrs. Applebaum is married to the former Foreign Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, whose party was ejected from power in a clean democratic election in 2015. This election resulted in a diametric changing of the Polish political guard and delivered an unprecedented unilateral mandate to govern without coalition to the Law & Justice party for the first time in modern Polish history (I highlight this since your columnist has not). But well before the rotation of parties in government, Mr. Sikorski was dismissed from his ministerial position after it became apparent to all that he too was embroiled in the “Aferatosmowa” hidden tapes scandal that decimated many Civic Platform, Sikorski’s ruling party, careers and reputations and paved the way for the dramatic turnover in government. This is not something Mrs. Applebaum has ever disclosed despite the distinct pertinence this has with regard to covering Poland and especially in writing about the new government whose leading figures’ enmity with Mr. Sikorski’s turfed-out party is well known in political circles. This is in clear violation of this paper’s “Standards and Ethics” as defined in the described “Conflict of Interest,” Section A, opening lines: “This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible.” as well as by the final lines of Section A: “We avoid active involvement in any partisan causes- politics, community affairs, social action, demonstrations- that could compromise or seem to compromise our ability to report and edit fairly.” Any columns referencing Poland would need to have Mrs. Applebaum’s detailed marital disclosure to avoid a violation of these statutes. I have not seen any disclosures.

In utilizing my column as proof of bigotry you failed to link to the column but rather chose to link to a Mediate analysis of it (“Breitbart Attacks WaPo Columnist For Being A ‘Jewish, American Elitist’”),reducing the opportunity for your readership to ascertain for themselves if this highly charged allegation was accurate. You used the words “repeatedly” and “gratuitously” to describe the frequency of my reference to her “Jewish origin.” In a 1400 word essay the word “Jewish” appeared exactly twice and with no over or under tone attached (most who read would have to agree). Any such perceived “dog whistle” is resultant from a reader’s prejudices, NOT from the author’s intent. This supposedly “gratuitous” bigotry was a descriptor applied in one small section (two consecutive sentences) that was relevant to the debate for the primary reason that in her September 19th Washington Post column (“In Poland, a preview of what Trump could do to America”) she suggests the sitting defense minister, Antoni Macierewicz (a bitter rival of her husband’s, also glaringly undisclosed) is an anti-Semite by stating that he has “given credence to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Trump’s Special-Prosecutor Promise Is Not a Criminalization of Politics : The Obama Justice Department’s ‘investigation’ of Hillary Clinton was the real banana-republic event. Andrew McCarthy

One of the sillier post-debate comments comes from Nicholas Burns of Harvard’s Kennedy School, who tweeted: “Threatening to jail a political opponent is anti-democratic and anti-American.”

Donald Trump did memorably say that Hillary Clinton “would be in jail” if he were president; but what he actually vowed to do was appoint a “special prosecutor” to look into Mrs. Clinton’s “situation” — by which he was obviously referring to the e-mail scandal.

This is manifestly not a case of banana-republic criminalization of politics. Trump was not threatening to go after Clinton because she has the temerity to oppose him politically. He was committing to have a special prosecutor investigate Clinton for mishandling classified information, destroying government files, and obstruction of justice — criminal misconduct that has nothing to do with being a political adversary of Trump’s, and for which others who commit similar felonies go to jail.

The Obama administration investigated Mrs. Clinton, at least ostensibly, for over a year. Is Professor Burns saying a politician should only be investigated by her political allies and may otherwise violate the law with impunity?

To get a sense of what a banana-republic Justice Department looks like, Burns might want to have a look at the Obama administration’s prosecutions of Dinesh D’Souza and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. D’Souza is a political critic of the president’s who was subjected to a criminal prosecution (in which the Justice Department pushed for a severe jail sentence, which the judge declined to impose) for a campaign-finance violation of the petty sort that the Justice Department routinely allows to be settled by a civil fine. (For example, it declined to prosecute the Obama 2008 campaign for offenses that dwarfed D’Souza’s.) Nakoula, the producer of the anti-Muslim video the Obama administration falsely portrayed as the catalyst of the Benghazi massacre, was subjected to a scapegoat prosecution (under the guise of a supervised-release violation) intended to bolster the administration’s “blame the video” narrative.

Prosecuting a person who happens to be a politician for serious crimes is an affirmation of the American principle that no one is above the law. Gerald Ford may have lost the tight 1976 election due to his controversial pardon of Richard Nixon, there having been a strong sense, particularly among Democrats, that Nixon should have been prosecuted for his crimes.

Trump’s ‘Special Prosecutor’ Where do you think he could have come up with that lousy idea?

Donald Trump says he wants a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton if he becomes President, and our friends on the left are up in arms. “Banana republic” stuff, they cry. We agree, but where were they when Barack Obama did the same in 2008?

“If I win, I am going to instruct my Attorney General to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” Mr. Trump told Mrs. Clinton at Sunday’s debate. This is a mistake on several levels, not least because promising to prosecute political opponents if you win is essentially a promise to politicize the Justice Department. It’s what dictatorships or unhealthy democracies like Argentina do, and it breeds lack of trust and public cynicism. It might cheer Mr. Trump’s supporters, but we doubt it will reassure undecided voters about his presidential temperament.

Then again, where could Mr. Trump have conjured such a bad idea? Well, maybe from a certain Senator who ran for President in 2008 promising an investigation of the Bush Administration’s “torture” of jihadist detainees. Here’s how he put it in April 2008:

“What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated.” He went on to say he didn’t want something that would “perceived” as a “partisan witch hunt,” but the signal was clear.

In 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder followed up by appointing John Durham as a special prosecutor to investigate CIA agents and contractors for their interrogations in the war on terror. Mr. Durham also looked into whether agents had illegally destroyed tapes of the interrogations. Mr. Durham never brought charges, but Mr. Obama’s call for a criminal probe was clearly aimed at indulging the left’s Bush hatred.