America’s Gentleman Bachelor may be living in a vagina-free zone, but I’ll give this to the ageing fairy, he does have a set of balls on his.
Case in point: While appearing on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday morning program, hostess Dana Bash was going back and forth with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in regards to President Trump’s announced plan to withdraw all US troops from Syria and roughly halve the number of troops currently deployed to Afghanistan.
As the conversation drifted to the reason why Barack Obama ordered the total withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, Bash immediately (and incorrectly) defended Obama, stating that he was legally bound to cut-and-run from Iraq due to the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) signed back in 2008.
It was then that the senior senator from the Palmetto State got rather testy with Bash, telling her in live TV that her defense of Obama was “a bunch of bullshit.”
During a Sunday interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Graham said that he doesn’t approve of President Donald Trump’s decision to pull troops from Syria and Afghanistan but added that the president inherited a “bad hand” from Obama.
“Everything we’re dealing with today falls on Obama’s watch,” Graham argued. “He’s the one who withdrew from Iraq.”
“But he did it because there was a Status of Forces Agreement,” host Dana Bash interrupted.
The U.S. and Iraq finalized a Status of Forces Agreement in 2008 wherein the U.S. government agreed to pull all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. However, the agreement was dependent on the current status of ground operations and the Bush administration expected that Obama would renegotiate the deal rather than pull out all of the troops at once.
“No, that’s a bunch of bullshit,” Graham responded to Bash’s point. “Pardon my French — that’s a complete lie.”
Graham doubled down and asserted that pulling the troops out of Iraq was a personal desire of Obama’s rather than something that was forced because of an agreement between the two countries.
“[Trump] was dealt a bad hand by Obama and he needs to play it better than he’s playing it,” Graham said. “I’m gonna talk to him at lunch.”
At least two dozen members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards force were killed as well as an undisclosed amount of newly arrived military supplies have been destroyed in an Israeli airstrike in Syria.
As reported by NBC News, US officials (speaking on the grounds of anonymity) have verified that three American-made F-15 Eagle fighter jets have hit a major Iranian military base in Hama, Syria, resulting two dozen dead and wounding three dozen others.
Long considered one of the top air superiority fighter jets in the world, the Eagle also has all-weather ground strike capabilities, as the Iranians just found out.
The Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad actually controls less than half of the nation. The country is a helter-skelter patchwork of areas shared by government forces, Kurdish rebels, various anti-Assad groups, and a much depleted ISIS.
Still on the ground in Syria, elements of a US Marine Expeditionary Unit and a handful of American Special Forces troops are in the eastern half of the embattled region.
Meanwhile, NBC News cites the soldiers loyal to the Damascus government are so weakened;
Russia runs the air war for the Assad regime in Syria, Iran is now running the ground war, the officials said, with Iranian military present at every major Russian and Syrian regime base in the country.
As also noted by NBC;
In the past two weeks Iran has increased military cargo flights to Syria, stocked with additional weapons and supplies like small arms, ammunition and surface-to-air missiles that two U.S. officials believe are meant both to shore up Iranian ground forces and to strike at Israel. For years the U.S. has tracked arms shipments from Iran to Hezbollah fighters in Syria supporting the Assad regime, but recently Iran has been supplying Hezbollah with more material and logistical support.
The same anonymous US officials supposedly warn that Israel is girding their loins for war with the Islamic Republic;
Israel now seems to be preparing for military action and is seeking U.S. help and support.
During the past week, senior Israeli military leaders have been meeting with senior U.S. counterparts, both in the region and in the U.S., looking for U.S. support for stronger action against Iran in Syria. U.S. officials say the Israeli requests include intelligence support.
Perhaps proving that the Jewish State is one to be reckoned with, NBC quotes the US Secretary of Defense and retired Marine General James “Chaos” Mattis;
“The Iranian forces … or the proxy forces have tried to get down closer to the Israeli border, I mean very close to it, and you’ve seen Israel take action over that.”
Warming the cockles of the hearts of every American who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, word is out in DC that the Trump Administration is seeking an Arab solution for an Arab problem.
Mark Moore of the New York Post is reporting that President Trump “is seeking to build a coalition of Arab forces to replace the United States military in Syria and help stabilize the region after the defeat of the Islamic State.”
While it has long been suspected that the official Arab past-time has been getting their asses kicked militarily by the Israelis, maybe there’s a chance that the Arabs, collectively, might have a bit more luck against their jihadist brethren.
And not only is the president looking for the Arab nations to take charge militarily in the once-ISIS held eastern third of Syria, but also pony-up the cash. It is there that roughly 2,000 American troops are wiping out the remaining nests of ISIS terrorists.
Reportedly, the governments of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar have all been contacted to fund the military expedition.
As it turns out, it’s not only the Persian Gulf nations being approached by Team Trump.
While not technically Arabs but descendants of the Coptic race, word is bubbling to the surface that the Egyptians have been approached, albeit unofficially;
National security adviser John Bolton has reached out to Egypt’s acting intelligence chief, Abbas Kammel, to see if he would take part in the effort, the Wall Street Journal reported Monday.
Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH) may be a member of the both the Senate’s Armed Services Committee and also the Foreign Relations Committee, but I’m getting the distinct impression that she’s not only behind the power curve, she’s also none-too bright.
As reported by London’s The Daily Mail, Professor Mike Pompeo had to convene a seminar on current affairs specifically for the Granite State lawmaker;
Responding to a complaint from Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen today that the Trump administration has not done enough to deter Russia – she pointed out that it had not enacted a slew of congressionally-approved sanctions – Pompeo agreed.
‘I readily concede that Vladimir Putin has not yet received the message sufficiently,’ he said. ‘And we need to continue to work at that.’
Continuing, Pompeo said that Trump has been tough on Russia.
‘It hasn’t just been sanctions, the largest expulsion of 60 folks was from this administration. This administration announced a nuclear posture review that has put Russia on notice that we are going to recapitalize our deterrent force.
‘In Syria, now, a handful of weeks ago, the Russians met their match. A couple hundred Russians were killed,’ Pompeo revealed. ‘The list of actions that this administration has taken, I’m happy to walk through each of them, but I don’t want to take up more time. The list is pretty long, ma’am.’
But wait! As someone on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, why in the world would Shaheen even have to bring up such a patently stupid question?
As the openly left-leaning Newsweek magazine reported late last February, “recorded phone calls were made by personnel from CHVK Wagner, a Russian private military company.”
As noted by Newsweek;
In the first audio clip, a man says, “One squadron f*ucking lost 200 people…right away, another one lost 10 people…and I don’t know about the third squadron but it got torn up pretty badly, too…. So three squadrons took a beating.”
While the ballyhoo and huzzahs at both the 2008 and 2012 Democratic National Conventions greeted Barack Obama’s promises to end America’s combat involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, not only has neither been honored, but now the same man who won the Nobel Peace Prize has ordered American combat troops into another Middle Eastern nation. As reported by Gregory Korte of USA TODAY on Oct. 31, 2015, and also by Nancy A. Youssef of The Daily Beast on Oct. 30, 2015, the campaign promises of Barack Obama are quite different from the orders given by Commander-in-Chief Obama.
During the coarse of his years in the White House, the community organizer from Waikiki has just shattered his oft-given pledge not to have the proverbial boots on the ground in Syria. While the Western media heaped über-homage on Obama during the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2009, the same military exit was reversed by 2014, but not quite as well covered by the same media.
On the heels of it being publicly announced that “less than 50” American troops designated as Special Operations Forces will be deployed onto Syrian soil to “train and advise.” As The Daily Beast’s Youssef cited, the phrase “train and advise” is “the very same language the Pentagon used when it first sent a few hundred troops to Iraq a year ago. There are now 3,000 troops there…”
As previously covered by Examiner.com on July 2, 2014, multiple sources were cited and linked to detailing upwards of 600 hundred Marines and Army Special Forces were sent to Iraq to beef-up security for the massive US embassy in Baghdad’s famed Green Zone. Curiously, it was also quietly revealed that of the 600 additional troops sent to augment the embassy’s Marine Security Guard Detachment, 200 of the Leathernecks were assigned specifically to provide perimeter security to the nearby Baghdad International Airport.
As USA TODAY’s Korte dug deep into the news archives, he uncovered a full 16 different occasions when Obama promised in public that no ground combat troops would ever be introduced into the middle of the Syrian civil war/terrorist invasion:
So again, I repeat, we’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach.” – Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013
“We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.” – Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013
“So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.” – Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013
“I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we’re talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that’s a sober decision.” – News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013
“The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we’ll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility.” – News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013
“What we’re not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground.” – Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013
“Tomorrow I’ll speak to the American people. I’ll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We’re not talking about — not boots on the ground. We’re not talking about sustained airstrikes.” – Interview with the PBS Newshour, Sept. 9, 2013
“What I’m going to try to propose is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground; nothing like that.” – Interview with CBS Evening News, Sept. 9, 2013
“Many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are ‘still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.’ A veteran put it more bluntly: ‘This nation is sick and tired of war.’ My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.” – Address to the Nation, Sept. 10, 2013
“We are doing everything we can to see how we can do that and how we can resource it. But I’ve looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem.” – Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 2014
“With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria.” – News conference in Newport, Wales, Sept. 5, 2014
The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that.” – Interview with Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2014
“I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.” – Address to the Nation on Syria, Sept. 10, 2014
“Right now we’re moving forward in conjunction with outstanding allies like Australia in training Iraqi security forces to do their job on the ground.” – News conference in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014
“The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. … As I’ve said before, I’m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East.” – Remarks at the White House, Feb. 11, 2015
“It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists.” – Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015
Russian smart bombs, wayward Russian cruise missiles, and ultimately Russian troops aren’t the only things sweeping the Middle East. As reported by Ivan Plis of the Daily Caller news portal on Oct. 12, 2015, the folk hero image of Russian President Vladimir Putin may be old hat back in Mother Russia, but the cult of Vladimir is sweeping across the Middle East faster than the invading Mohammedan armies of old.
As depicted in the film Schindler’s List, as SS Hauptsturmführer Amon Goeth was briefing his troops on destroying a Polish city’s Jewish Quarter, screen writer Steven Zaillian may have penned the best example of how a determined force can make centuries of history disappear in very short order. As the scenarist wrote; “Six hundred years ago, when elsewhere they were footing the blame for the Black Death, Casimir the Great – so called – told the Jews they could come to Kraków. They came. They trundled their belongings into the city. They settled. They took hold. They prospered in business, science, education, the arts. They came with nothing. And they flourished. For six centuries there has been a Jewish Kraków. By this evening those six centuries will be a rumor. They never happened.”
There once was a major Christian leader who advocated armed might to both stem the tide of an invading and quite bloody army as well as to protect individual Christians threatened by the same invaders. Almost a thousand years later, the warning largely attributed to philosopher Jorge Santyana still rings true: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Continue reading “Russian Orthodox Church declares war on ISIS a ‘holy battle’”→
Russian President Vladimir Putin has long been accused of attempting to resurrect the long dead Russian Empire. If the former KGB Lt. Col.’s moves in the war-torn nation of Syria are any indication of his real intentions, the accusations may be true.
Sometimes, a nation’s leaders must draw the line between what is a refugee crisis and what is an invasion. Much like a nation’s leaders must draw the line when it come to spending the taxpayers money even when that same nation is estimated to be just a few short months away from seeing itself at an eye popping $19 trillion in debt.
While the American media focuses in on the Trump vs. Fiorina verbal zinger-fest with laser-like precision, foreign news services are picking up the Yankee slack on reporting of the Russian military build-up in the Middle East. As reported by Great Britain’s The Guardian and Israel’s military-centric new media portal DEBKAfile, both on Sept. 17, 2015, and also The Manila Times on Sept. 16, 2015, Russian Naval Infantry (Marines) have left their coastal bases and heading for a showdown with the Islamic jihadists situated further inland.
While most in the American media have essentially turned a blind eye to the Russians flexing their military muscle in Syria, even the handful that have acknowledged the Russian build-up as little more that the expansion of a fairly obscure airstrip on the Syrian coast. And with that expansion comes a handful of Russian Marines for base security and a handful of air defense missiles.Yet the latest from the Middle East is that the Russians have hit the ground with the most offensive weapons since morning breath and body odor.
Three years ago Barack Obama gave a very direct warning to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to cease and desist using chemical weapons. Diplomatic and military wonks across the board agreed the same warning was also indirectly aimed directly at Assad’s patron in Moscow. To accentuate just how much he really meant it this time, the Commander-in-Chief of the American Armed Forces actually uttered the unmistakable words: Red line.
In what some are calling yet another diplomatic thumb directly in the eye of Barack Obama, Iranian special forces have reportedly landed in Syria to join with the relative handful of Russian Naval Infantry already in-country to aid the regime’s strongman retain power. As reported by Mark Rivett-Carnac of the Reuters news service via Time magazine, and also by Johnlee Varghese of the International Business Times (IBT) India edition, both on Sept. 11, 2015, a mixed force of approximately 1,000 Iranian Marines and members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps are within a figurative stone’s throw from the roughly 100 Russian Naval Infantry (Marines) who recently touched down in the war-torn nation. Continue reading “Syria: 1,000 Iranian Marines link up with 100 Russian Marines for combat ops”→
There are certain things that all Corps of Marines have in common regardless of nationality. Case in point would be one of the official functions of the American Marine Corps: “for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases…” With a flurry of reports coming out of the eastern Mediterranean hitting the news wires by the moment, it certainly appears that the Russian Marines have the same duties as their American counterparts.