Category Archives: Iraq

Laura Ingraham: ‘Iraq Is Worse Off’ Now Than Under Saddam

Anyone with eyes can see the DC Empire has turned a dysfunctional country into a hellhole:

The conservative radio host made the assertion during a “Fox News Sunday” panel debating the impact of President Barack Obama’s decision to make limited strikes in northern Iraq against ultra-violent jihadists from the Islamic State. (RELATED: ISIS Threatens America: ‘We Will Raise The Flag Of Allah In The White House’)

Ingraham contended that military action in the country — even to prevent genocide and oppression — seems to always backfire.

“We try to do all these things in Iraq, now Iraq is worse off,” she said. “I mean, I hate to say that, but Iraq is worse than before we went into Iraq.”

“Christians are gone, there’s no sense of order at all,” she explained. “Saddam Hussein is gone, that’s a good thing. But what’s left? A more emboldened Islamic State, not contained, apparently, even by U.S. airstrikes.”

But that’s the thing about ideologues, from Puritans to today’s antifa – determined to rid the world of all evil, they make things even worse. The Southern tradition is to deal with life as it is rather than forcing the world to conform to some abstract ideal. As Richard Weaver once noted, “The Southerner accepts the irremediability of a certain amount of evil and tries to fence it around instead of trying to stamp it out and thereby spreading it. His is a classical acknowledgment of tragedy and of the limits of power.”

That reminds me of a classic Twilight Zone episode, “The Howling Man.” Thinking he is helping an innocent man cruelly imprisoned by religious fanatics, an American tourist in Europe unwittingly frees the Devil. There’s a lesson here for do-gooders everywhere:

This time, the sky really IS falling

Li’l Lindsey Graham is once again doing what he does best, and that’s to terrify Americans into supporting yet another war. From Fox News:

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM sounds the alarm about the growing threat of the Islamic State, the militant group formerly known as ISIS, launching an attack on American soil unless President Obama takes more decisive action to stop terror group’s surge across Iraq and Syria.

And as we all know, by “decisive,” Li’l Lindsey means “doing what Bill Kristol and Bibi Netanyahu want us to do.” So let’s all run around the room screaming, then take DECISIVE action and beg our Congress to do the one thing it’s capable of doing, and that’s to vote money for Israel and the Pentagon. Otherwise the Islamic State armored division will sprout wings and swoop out of the skies and spray Des Moines with 30mm shells.

What will the outcome be? We know that: Armaments industries and AIPAC will shower Li’l Lindsey and his friends with generous campaign contributions. After a decade or so, the guerrillas will out-maneuver the invaders, and we’ll have NO CHOICE but to grant citizenship to the Syrian and Iraqi Muslims who collaborated with US forces.

Win-win!

Unclear on the concept

One of the loudest and least reflective of the armchair generals demanding Obama go back into Iraq calls herself “neo-neocon.” She’s a competent writer but is wedded to the notion that all problems, whether they be Putin in Ukraine, ISIS in Iraq, or Miley Cyrus in concert, can and should be solved by military action. (I might be persuaded about Miley Cyrus.)

Anyway, her latest post chides Obama for not taking more decisive action in Iraq (“decisive,” of course, meaning “doing whatever Bill Kristol and Bibi Netanyahu demand.”). In neo-neocon’s eyes, Obama is an out-of-touch idealist who thinks he can hug and dialogue his way out of every problem instead of having to wage war. Says neo-neocon:

Turns out that America as cowboy wasn’t so bad after all. The worldwide events of the last few years underscore how putting the “can’t we all just get along?” crowd in charge is one of the surest paths toward chaos and war. That is a terrible paradox, one that has been amply demonstrated in the past, particularly in Munich, 1938.

Ah, yes. It’s Munich, I tell you! Because anything other than shock and awe is capitulation.

But the kicker is that neo-neocon cites Rudyard Kipling’s “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” with this comment:

It is a profoundly realistic, resigned, and anti-liberal statement of human nature and its follies, and the futility of “hope and change.” The Gods of the Copybook Headings laugh at Nobel Peace Prizes, recognizing them as temporary illusions.

Talk about unclear on the concept. When Kipling wrote this powerful poem, he had just lost his son in the mindless meatgrinder we today call WWI. The poem is about the empty-headed slogans people let themselves be fooled by. (“Global Democratic Revolution,” anyone?) It’s laughable that the same post that urges Obama to go back into Iraq quotes a poem with this verse:

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; 

Read that last line again about going back to the fire. That’s exactly what neo-neocon and the rest of her ilk want us to do in Iraq.

Neocons. They never learn from their mistakes. Worse, they never admit they make mistakes.

ISIS Destroys Tomb of Jonah

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Russia Today reports on ISIS’s destruction of the Tomb of Jonas. RT estimates the original site dates back to the eighth century BC.

The Tomb was a holy site for both Christians and Muslim (as well as Jews?). It is just one of a number of holy sites recently destroyed by ISIS, which must view them as false idols. According to RT: “Thirty shrines and 15 hussainias and mosques in the Mosul area have been destroyed by IS in recent months.”

ISIS would have never risen to power without US aid given to Syrian rebels. Whenever the US gets involved in the Middle East, we see archaeological sites and museums looted, ancient ethnic minorities chased out (especially Christians, some of the oldest Christian communities), and world heritage sites destroyed.

And of course in America, there are increasing calls for destroying native heritage sites here.

Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Blasts US For Incompetence In Iraq

Maybe this interview will cause Catholic pundits like Michael Novak and George Weigel to take notes, and do a lot of earnest soul-searching about having supported the neoconservative foreign policy program.

The Americans were here and made many mistakes. The present situation is their fault. Why replace a regime with a situation that is worse? That happened after 2003. The Americans deposed a dictator. But at least back then under Saddam Hussein we had security and work. And what do we have now? Confusion, anarchy and chaos. The same thing happened in Libya and Syria.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.  Novak & Co. are at least as likely to accuse the patriarch of flirting with bigotry, since he makes the “racist” claim that “[i]t is impossible to establish here a democracy on the Western model.”

Personally, I think His Excellency errs in criticizing the West’s lack of interest in the situation.  Were I in his shoes, the last thing I’d want is more deranged Western busybodies poking their noses into Iraq.  In lamenting the flight of Christians from the troubled region and warning that “[o]ur identity is threatened,” the patriarch reveals that he doesn’t really understand his Anglo counterparts.  A few honorable exceptions aside, American Catholic leaders are no different from other members of the Western political elite, in that they see the elimination of inherited identity and historic community as a good thing.  Hoo-ray diversity!

The Kurds are all right

The crisis in Iraq has dealt a major blow to consolidated government. The Kurds are now on board to partition Iraq:

The collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and the spread of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) to cities seems to have strengthened the positions of those demanding independent Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. The Kurds, who support this division, declared yesterday [June 17] they don’t intend to withdraw from Kirkuk and “the disputed areas.” The Kurds emphasized they will avoid a confrontation with ISIS “except for self-defense.”

Telegraph columnist Daniel Hannan wonders how much better it would have been if the Western powers had allowed the Middle East to self-organize naturally:

How much disorder, horror, fear and mutiny might have been avoided had Iraq been divided along ethnographic lines in 2003 – or, better yet, in 1920. (If you don’t like the word “ethnographic”, substitute “democratic”: it amounts to the same thing.)

Re-read that last sentence. It will be the guiding principle of politics for the 21st century.

Let’s re-invade Iraq! What could go wrong?

Just how insane and detached from reality are Neocons? Apparently, they’re sufficiently delusional to call for putting American boots on the ground in a country the US Embassy is now evacuating. And for what purpose? Why, to enforce “inclusiveness.” Sound like a worthy military goal to you? It does to Fat Freddy Kagan:

The U.S. has been pushing for an inclusive political settlement in Iraq that brings the Sunni into the government and denies ISIS popular support. The current crisis has resulted in considerable part, in fact, from Maliki’s sectarian actions and systematic exclusion of Sunnis from political power and influence.

Like all apologists for empire, Kagan is mortified at the prospect of self-determination. “Inclusion” is how proponents of Big Government justify their one-size-fits-all ideology. What people like Kagan cannot comprehend is that the people of the Middle East had little to say about the borders they have to live in, and are resorting to violence to win what has been denied them. The brutality going on now is the direct result of past interventions by those who thought they knew what was best for the people of the Middle East. Kagan thinks we haven’t done enough harm to these people, and like the kid with nothing in his tool box but a hammer, wants to intervene yet again:

Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.

In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required.

Why not? Why, it’ll only take a few regiments. It’ll be a cakewalk. Iraqi oil will pay for the invasion. And the American people will cheer on the troops once news of easy victories come rolling in. Yeah.

Fat Freddy Kagan is calling for an unwinnable fight for an impossible goal that has no popular support.

Tony Blair Blames Non-Intervention for Iraqi Chaos

From Tony Blair’s website:

Highlights:

Tony Blair: However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

My comment: In other words, US support for the Syrian rebels has ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. The Iraqi militants are also Sunni, Blair and Obama’s allies against Assad.

Tony Blair: Already the security agencies of Europe believe our biggest future threat will come from returning fighters from Syria. There is a real risk that Syria becomes a haven for terrorism worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. But think also of the effect that Syria is having on the Lebanon and Jordan. There is no way this conflagration was ever going to stay confined to Syria. I understand all the reasons following Afghanistan and Iraq why public opinion was so hostile to involvement. Action in Syria did not and need not be as in those military engagements. But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater.

Tony Blair: The moderate and sensible elements of the Syria Opposition should be given the support they need; Assad should know he cannot win an outright victory; and the extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted, in coordination and with the agreement of the Arab countries. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.

My comment: Assad is an enemy of al-Qaeda! He is supported by the Christians and other minorities within Syria. It is Blair and Obama who have supported the Sunni terrorists. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Assad is not Sunni.

——-

Additional:

Tony Blair: The first is there was no WMD risk from Saddam and therefore the casus belli was wrong. What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the West, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them.

My comment: It remains unproven who used the WMD. Assad certainly had nothing to gain from it: The timing was worst-possible for Assad, with UN inspectors to review it.

This is another example of how Blair etc. write a false history and of how vital it is to record a true history, based on facts. While perfect objectivity is impossible, wilful propaganda is inexcusable. Blair would have us teach outright lies to future generations of children.

Tony Blair: In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

My comment: Again, support has been given to the rebels, who are Sunni.

Tony Blair: Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.

My comment: Again, this is speculative, unfounded.

Tony Blair: I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it.

My comment: 9/11 would have been prevented had US immigration policy been enforced. The hijackers were in the US illegally.

Not only is the border crisis worse today, but the US has imported Muslim refugees since then. US policy has once again made matters worse since 9/11.

Tony Blair: It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations.

My comment: Here’s an easy solution: Deport them and cease importing more!

Resistance to DC rising

“The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around.” Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN

Pat Buchanan has a must-read piece that is perfect in every way except for its inappropriate title, “Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring.” My nit-pick is that “isolationism” is what interventionists use to slam those who question their endless wars. It’s the equivalent of the use of “racist” to put down anyone who objects to socialism — which is exactly what that term means. And as I’ve argued before, the interventionist abroad validates and reinforces the interventionist at home. Both have an other-worldly ideal that mere humanity never quite lives up to, requiring the noble idealists to spill a little more blood. All in the name of doing good, you see.

Pat points out that the interventionists have directly harmed this country. The facts he presents cannot be argued:

We invaded Panama, intervened in Haiti and Mogadishu, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, bombed Serbia for 78 days to force it to surrender its cradle province of Kosovo.

Came then the blowback of 9/11, following which we had the Afghan war to overthrow the Taliban and create a new democracy in the Hindu Kush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have, and the air war on Libya.

Others may celebrate the fruits of these wars but consider the costs:

A decade of bleeding with 8,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk, Iraq and Libya disintegrating in tribal, civil and sectarian war, Afghanistan on the precipice, and al-Qaida no longer confined to Tora Bora but active in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.

While America was caught up in these wars, China swept past Britain, France, Germany and Japan to emerge as the second largest economy on earth. Using her $250-$300 billion annual trade surpluses with the United States, she has been locking up resources across Africa, Latin America, Australia and Asia.

Now Beijing has declared its own Monroe Doctrine to encompass the East and South China seas and all islands therein and to challenge the United States for hegemony over the Western Pacific.

The Afghan and Iraq wars, we should note, were supported by big-government interventionists of both the left and right. What’s scary is that the same coalition is still at it today, demanding war on Iran, and blasting those who courageously uncover illegal surveillance by the federal government. Despite their differences, the left and right interventionists are united in their support of a powerful centralized government and the demonization of dissent.

The bottom line is that they’re both cheering while the federal government chips away at what’s left of our liberty. That makes them part of the problem, not the solution. Let’s not forget that.

2 years after US military departure, Iraq asking for new help to battle al-Qaida

Oh, good Lord, here we go again:

Nearly two years after pushing out the U.S. military, Iraq is asking for more American weapons, training and manpower to help fight a bloody resurgence of al-Qaida that has unleashed a level of violence comparable to the darkest days of the nation’s civil war….

Al-Maliki is expected to ask Obama for new assistance to bolster its military and fight al-Qaida. Faily said that could include everything from speeding up the delivery of U.S. aircraft, missiles, interceptors and other weapons, to improving national intelligence systems. And when asked, he did not rule out the possibility of asking the U.S. to send military special forces or additional CIA advisers to Iraq to help train and assist counterterror troops.

First of all, let’s remember that al-Qaida DID NOT EXIST in Iraq until W the Conqueror invaded, destroying the existing political order and unleashing fresh conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites. al-Qaeda is Sunni, and represents the most visible example of 4th generation warfare, which is characterized by long-term, decentralized conflict conducted by non-governmental entities. For any government, especially the US government, to stick its nose into such a conflict would be worse than poking a hornet’s nest–imagine the barriers collapsing between the honey badger, wolverine, and dingo exhibits at the zoo, and rushing in with a butterfly net.

But surely Obama, that “peacenik liberal,” would never consider getting us mired in that nightmare. Would he? From Fox News:

Administration officials consider the insurgency, which has rebranded itself as the Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant, a major and increasing threat both to Iraq and the U.S., the official said.

Well, it WOULD get people’s minds off the ObamaCare fiasco…

“American Exceptionalism” = Yankee Supremacy

In a recent open letter to the American people, Russian president Vladimir Putin assured us he likes and respects us, but asked us to realize we’re embarrassing ourselves and doing a lot of harm with our delusion of “American Exceptionalism.” Both the mainstream American left and right rushed to prop up our most beloved myth against this iconoclastic Cossack.

What’s interesting is that both wings of accepted American thought agree on what “exceptionalism” means–and more significantly, that both, though supposedly rivals, are actually in lockstep on all other major issues as a result.

For example, liberal columnist Dana Milbank shot back at President Putin with this bristling retort:

When we say we are exceptional, what we really are saying is we are different. With few exceptions, we are all strangers to our land; our families came from all corners of the world and brought all of its colors, religions and languages. We believe this mixing, together with our free society, has produced generations of creative energy and ingenuity, from the Declaration of Independence to Facebook, from Thomas Jefferson to Miley Cyrus. There is no other country quite like that.

Americans aren’t better than others, but our American experience is unique — exceptional — and it has created the world’s most powerful economy and military, which, more often than not, has been used for good in the world.

Miley Cyrus? Really? My pride floweth over.

And former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, now president of The Heritage Foundation, also defended “exceptionalism” by invoking the image of America as the Multi-Culti Empire that roams the globe doing good:

We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans…. When we have used our power, however, we have done it for good.”

Both echoed what Madeleine Albright said as secretary of state:

It is the threat of the use of force [against Iraq] and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.

That self-image still inspires the Obama regime’s global aggression:

In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.

“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”

If your identity is that of a polyglot hegemon endowed with greater wisdom than the rest of the world, how can you NOT support open borders? Or the invasion of Iraq? Or Iran? Or Syria?

First of all, the US was NOT founded as a unique blend of whatever ethnic group decided to elbow its way in; it was founded as an outpost of Western civilization.

More important, the notion that the American people have always been committed to a never-ending global war to impose democracy and equality is a pure lie, and a fairly recent one at that. Previous “Wars of Liberation,” including Lincoln’s invasion of the South, the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, and Iraq, later turned out to be based on massive propaganda and misinformation.

The core idea expressed in “American Exceptionalism” is that the role of America’s elite is to serve as the global mind bringing reason and order to a chaotic, degenerate world. That is Gnosticism, an anti-Christian concept that explicitly glorifies abstract knowledge while scorning the physical. I argued here that Northern thought degenerated from its Puritan roots into militant Gnosticism, while Southerners upheld and lived by a balance between the spiritual and the physical.

Author John C. Wright said this of the Gnostic foundations of today’s statists and their leftist enablers:

In sum, they are idolaters who substitute the worship of Caesar for the worship of Christ; they are Gnostics in the posture of eternal rebellion both against God in Heaven and civil society on Earth. They are chameleons who adopt any ideals or values or party lines needed for so long as needed to destroy them, including Pragmatism, including Worldliness. They are Politically Correct and factually incorrect.

They seek to destroy civilized institutions here on Earth and drag Utopia down from heaven to replace them, indifferent, or even glorying, in the bloodshed required.

To avoid confusion, let us call them Ideologues. They are utterly unworldly, rejecting the pragmatism of the Worldly Man as cold and loveless and unspiritual.

The Ideologues are as nearly a pure evil as mankind has ever produced or can imagine, but please note that their motives are the highest and noblest imaginable: they seek things of the spirit, peace on earth, food for the poor, dignity given to all men, and all such things which are the only things, the holy things, that can electrify dull mankind and stir him to take up the banner and trumpet and shining lance of high and holy crusade.

Ever wonder why leftists see “education” as the cure to all ills? Or why they fancy themselves superior to those they see as living in the darkness of tradition and irrationality? Their contempt for the physical explains their hatred of heritage and tradition–and of life itself. But as John C. Wright pointed out, there’s a terrible price to pay for the spreading of their concept of the good. When Madeleine Albright proclaimed the death of a half-million Iraqi children as “worth it,” she was expressing what all Gnostics believe.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Colin Powell Slams North Carolina Voting Law

Now here’s an opinion we MUST pay attention to — because if a man who helped lie us into a war assures us we’re doing something wrong, then we MUST be doing something wrong:

Colin Powell spoke out forcefully Thursday against a sweeping new voting law in North Carolina, arguing that Republicans should be courting minority voters rather than driving them away from the polls. …

North Carolina’s Democratic senator, Kay Hagan, has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to review the law and a survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling showed that half of Tar Heel State voters are opposed to the measure.

Powell, who endorsed President Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012, has addressed his party’s problems with minorities before. In January, he said that he still considers himself a Republican but acknowledged the presence of “a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party.”

He revisited that theme in a big way on Thursday, arguing that measures like North Carolina’s voting law punish minority voters.

“What it really says to the minority voters is … ‘We really are sort-of punishing you,’” Powell said, as quoted by The News & Observer.

Kay Hagan, you may not know, is the junior senator from the District of Columbia, though her salary is paid for by the people of North Carolina. That may sound strange, but that’s how government “of the people” works. But then, thanks to the 17th Amendment, EVERY US senator represents DC’s interests.

I hope NC Governor Pat McCrory tells Holder to go jump in a lake should this most biased and blatantly agenda-driven attorney general decide to intrude into North Carolina’s affairs. But I’m not that optimistic. Pat’s a carpetbagger, as well as a country-club Republican, so I don’t expect much from him.

“Neocon” means never saying you’re sorry

Or that you were wrong. In response to the latest Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq, Americaneocon blames Obama’s foreign policy. Huh? It was the Bush administration that agreed to this non-negotiable provision with the puppet Iraq government:

“All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

Now that U.S. occupation forces have left, old battles have resumed. In fact, no other outcome was possible since the Allies of WWI deliberately cobbled together random regions of the old Ottoman Empire to ensure oil-rich Iraq would be unstable and easily exploitable.

Iraq is fracturing into its component cultural regions, which Americaneocon notes, but wrongly attributes to Bush’s “global democratic revolution”:

There’s been a few bright spots, like the northern Kurdish region, where democratization is taking hold. But that’s despite the best efforts of this administration to sabotage the movement toward freedom in the country. What a shame.

In fact, the Kurds have long agitated for their independence. One of the sad ironies of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was the charge that Saddam “attacked his own people,” referring to his use of poison gas against the rebellious Kurds. Of course, the U.S. government not only failed to condemn Iraq at the time — after all, Saddam was D.C.’s paid-for client then — but even tried to shift blame to Iran.

You love Lincoln, don’t you?

You’d better – or Rich Lowry will tell everyone how “foul” and “rancid” you are. Those are the adjectives Lowry tosses at Thomas DiLorenzo for unmasking the crimes and treason of the 16th president. And Lowry makes it clear he considers anyone who has read DiLorenzo and questions the Lincoln Myth is part of a “small but foul pro-Confederacy strain on the right.”

Reading Lowry’s article, one can just smell the fear emanating from Lowry, a pundit who’s notorious for his tendency to run away from a fight while goading others to fight for him. Cowards often compensate by talking tough, and Lowry not only supported the invasion of Iraq, but the nuclear bombing of Mecca since the 9/11 conspirators were all Muslim. I can just see Richie Rich giggling in anticipation of thousands of innocent lives being snuffed out in the name of American Power.

I suspect what’s got Lowry so worked up is the steady progress folks like DiLorenzo have made in exposing Lincoln and the regime he founded. The ever-prescient Ed Sebesta hits the bull’s eye in his blog post when he says

What is interesting is that Lowry decided that this article needed writing. The anti-Lincoln campaign of the neo-Confederates has been going on for some time. I think this might be a sign that the anti-Lincoln campaign is going somewhere and the leadership of conservatism in America is beginning to get concerned.

Amen, Brother Sebesta! The concern is real because Lowry knows that exposing Lincoln exposes the Empire. The Lincoln Myth of the Great Liberator is the founding myth of the rogue global empire headquartered in DC today. That myth justifies the ruling elite’s power and privilege in the name of spreading freedom and democracy, terms we heard ad nauseum in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Lincoln’s role as the founder and model of today’s authoritarian American Empire isn’t just my idea. Here’s what Lowry himself wrote recently in an article entitled, “Lincoln Can Teach Us Today“:

The National Security Agency telephone and Internet surveillance program is similar to Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War act of suspending habeas corpus, National Review editor Rich Lowry tells Newsmax.

“When he did it initially, any reasonable person would think it was an appropriate measure because troops were coming down from the North at the beginning of the war when Washington was isolated and not protected, and they were stopped in Baltimore by mobs.”

However, many in Lincoln’s day believed the suspension went too far when it became almost a matter of routine, Lowry said.

They’re ba-ack!

Remember the coalition of big-government supporters who bullied and frightened us into supporting the Iraq War? That war, by the way, crippled both the economy and over 100,000 American troops, and spawned the USA Patriot Act.

Well, they have something else to sell you, so you better listen up:

Edward Snowden is an enemy of the people. The patriotic peoples of the United States of America are in perfect solidarity with their humble servants in the National Security Agency, who labor day and night to protect them from terrorists.”

Yes, the same chorus that sang the praises of the Iraq War, the Department of Homeland Security, and indefinite detention, is now demanding the head of Edward Snowden.

Here’s everyone’s favorite name-dropper and fear-monger, Thomas Friedman:

“I do wonder if some of those who unequivocally defend this disclosure are behaving as if 9/11 never happened — that the only thing we have to fear is government intrusion in our lives, not the intrusion of those who gather in secret cells in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan and plot how to topple our tallest buildings or bring down U.S. airliners with bombs planted inside underwear, tennis shoes or computer printers.”

Yes, the li’l ol’ US of A was just sitting there, minding its own business on 9/11 when those dastardly terrorists slipped past the ever-vigilant George W. Bush and attacked the World Trade Center. And if you object to the National Security Agency monitoring your emails and phone conversations, it will happen again, and it will be your fault. So says Thomas Friedman, who is never wrong.

David Brooks, who went down fighting for the Bush-Cheney storyboard even after Bush and Cheney abandoned it, wonders how Americans could take a high school dropout seriously, then finishes Snowden off with this killshot:

“He betrayed the Constitution. The founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed. Snowden self-indulgently short-circuited the democratic structures of accountability, putting his own preferences above everything else.”

Yes, of course. The Founders really wanted an all-powerful central government working in the shadows to give itself the power to monitor, indefinitely imprison, and even assassinate enemies.

Andrew Sullivan, who famously called for fellow homosexuals to cheer on Bush’s wars in the name of the Global War of Homosexual Liberation, now counsels Americans to hush up about the leaked documents and trust their betters in DC.

But remember, it’s not just the DC-embedded elite columnists who create consensus. There’s a role for blue-collar advocates, too. In the runup to the Iraq War, a coalition of progressive and conservative grass-roots bloggers sounded the alarm about Saddam Hussein’s plot to conquer and enslave us all. Of course, when no WMD were found, and the Iraqi insurgents took up W’s challenge to “bring it on,” many of these former war supporters, like their national columnist allies, backed away from the war and started pointing fingers. Even more embarrassing, the right- and left-wing blogs, such as American Power, The Other McCain, and Little Green Footballs, started sniping at each other in what I called the “Little Green Meltdown.”

But Edward Snowden’s leaks have brought them back together. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs has been firing at Snowden’s supporters like a Gatling gun. (See here, and here, for example.) No one can match the biting arrogance of Charles Johnson when he scourges the depravity and ignorance of those who dare disagree with him. He dismisses Edward Snowden by simply quoting from the press release of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. So see here, peasants, attend to the words of your betters, and we shall have no more talk of “illegal” spying.

Not to be outdone, The Other McCain assures his conservative base that Snowden, rather than a hero, is a traitor who deserves the firing squad, hanging, and torture, with the only thing to be debated is the order of those punishments. Says he: “I don’t see any crime at NSA, beyond the negligence that put a high-school dropout in a position to decide what secrets the U.S. government is permitted to keep.”

And this: “Twitter Poll: #Snowden — Guantanamo or Leavenworth?”

These headlines reveal why we’re seeing so much venom aimed at Snowden:

More Americans see man who leaked NSA secrets as ‘patriot’ than traitor: Poll

Americans Disapprove of Government Surveillance Programs

Compare those headlines with this one:

Lawmakers see Edward Snowden as a leaker, not as a hero

So once again, it all comes down to defending the status quo. Our rulers in DC are a little nervous these days. Their machinery of control – that’s what government surveillance is all about, NOT keeping you safe – is despised more than ever. The regime’s legitimacy is at stake here, and its loyal servants know it. Therefore, it’s time for the presstitutes to once again do what they do best, and that is to shame dissidents, fool the American people, and erase dangerous ideas from public discourse.

Once again, it’s the “patriotic” thing to do.

Quote of the day

“I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, Terry, a kind of pop sociology in America, that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni, or the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of fundamentalist regime.” Bill Kristol, arguing that Jeffersonian democracy would prevail in Iraq after the US overthrew its former flunky, Saddam Hussein.

Neanwhile,here in the real world, sectarian bloodshed is escalating in Iraq now that US forces have withdrawn. The majority Shia, now in power, have ruled with a heavy hand, precipitating a Sunni backlash that has many fearing that civil war in inevitable.

Same-sex marriage as a “conservative” goal?

Sure, says Andrew Sullivan, who approvingly quotes David Frum, who now agrees with Sullivan. All “principled conservatives,” says Sullivan, support same-sex marriage.

Right. Let’s not forget that both were prominent chickenhawk war boosters for the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Frum slammed REAL conservatives who questioned W’s lunatic crusade as “unpatriotic,” and Sullivan called for nuking Iraq, convinced that Saddam was behind the anthrax scares. In fact, Sullivan even advised fellow homosexuals to support regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of “gay liberation.”

“Principled conservatives,” indeed.

“Neocon” is now a synonym for “Delusional”

Check out this bizarre post from American Power entitled “Just and Noble War in Iraq”:

It’s the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq war and the left is using this as a chance to (hypocritically) delegitimize the use of force in national security policy. … Iraq was popular at the beginning, but Americans rejected the prolonged deployment. … The Democrats: the party of defeat and treason.


As astounding that anyone could defend the Bush regime’s rush to war in Iraq, it’s just stupefying that the war could be praised as a project “conservatives” must defend against “leftists.” So I had to drop a comment:

Many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, including the Clintons, Dianne Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman.

The reason the majority of Americans turned against the war was because they eventually realized the Bush regime had LIED about WMD and Iraq’s ties to 9/11.

The blog author responded with this incredible assertion: “Bush didn’t lie. It’s a lie to say he lied.”

Now let me get this straight: I’m lying when I say Bush lied? In fact, we now know that both British and American intelligence knew before the war “that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction.”

The head of Britain’s spy service at the time, Richard Dearlove, has admitted, “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”

The reason Americans initially supported the Iraq War was because they had been led to believe Saddam had assisted the 9/11 terrorists. A congressional investigation identified “237 misleading statements” about Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell.

Were Bush regime officials lying, or were they merely mistaken? In 2002, Dick Cheney made this assertion: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

A claim to certain knowledge can be verified or disproven by subsequent events. I’d say that what’s transpired between the run-up to the war and now has thoroughly disproven the Bush regime’s statements.

Maybe you don’t think this affects you. “So what if a million Iraqis died, and three million lost their homes? Why do I care?” For one thing, we’re going to suffer for this colossal blunder for decades. Some of the direct results of the Neocon Wars include the Department of Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act, surveillance drones, and indefinite detention.

Then there’s the expanded Muslim influence here at home directly attributable to the Iraq War. Some 62,000 Iraqis have settled in the US since the war. The town of El Cajon, California, is now called “Little Baghdad” because of the 20,000 Iraqis who now live there. Have these Iraqis assimilated? Check it out:

Stores sell pickled turnips and cucumbers. Restaurants sell kebobs and Halal meat. … There are Kurds from the country’s northern region, Sunnis from central areas, and Shiite from the south. There are Chaldean Christians as well.

Is this good for Americans? Think the old rivalries between those groups will continue? Who knows?

And who cares?

We Must Leave Afghanistan and the Middle East Immediately

By Frosty Wooldridge

After ten bloody years in Vietnam, we finally pulled out in 1975.  We left the country bombed out, Agent Orange-contaminated and a trail of 2.million corpses of men, women and children.  We suffered 58,300 young men’s deaths and another 350,000 horribly injured.  Because of P.T.S.D., another 200,000 combat troops who left Vietnam in one piece—later committed suicide.  Millions more remain divorced, homeless, drunk and mentally distressed on our streets across America. We did nothing to make the world a better place.

Later, Robert McNamara, the architect of the Vietnam War, in his book Fog of War  said, “I made a mistake.”

Ten years ago, George W. Bush, arrogantly and without valid purpose— idiotically attacked Iraq with the same immorality and ignorance as Lyndon Baines Johnson attacked Vietnam.  Gulf of Tonkin and Weapons of Mass Destruction—both a bunch of balderdash.  Bush should stand trial for war crimes against humanity.  He created tens of thousands of “Newtown, CT” events in Iraq.

Continue reading