California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

End the War in Afghanistan; Use Money Saved for Border Security

by John Lawrence, January 4, 2019

The war in Afghanistan is costing US taxpayers $45 billion per year. That's 123,287,671.233 a day. Why not end it and spend the money on enhanced border security which might include a wall in some places. I'd like to see a comprehensive, well thought out plan for border security, not just throwing money at some wall for political purposes. If these presumably intelligent people in Congress can't do something intelligent in a rational manner instead of just playing politics, it's a harbinger that the end is near for US domination of the world. The newly elected Democrat controlled House of Representatives is a step in the right direction. However, Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate will block everything the Progressives want to do, just like they did with Obama.

So we will continue to have a neocon world view with Trump running a non-stop reelection campaign. The only hope for this country is to get rid of Trump and elect a Democratic Senate in 2020. Then maybe some wars will end, some infrastructure will get built, inequality will be abated and some sense will be instilled at the national level. Meanwhile the rest of the world is passing us by. China is in the process of proving that communism (at least the Chinese variant of it) is superior to capitalism (at least the American version of it). They just landed on the back side of the moon for Pete's sake. The US has teamed up with the worst actor in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia - making it dubious that America has any claim to moral leadership in the world.

The playbook for the Republicans, when the Democrats take power, will be to insist that they pay down the deficit - the deficit that the Republicans have run up with their tax cuts for the wealthy. The Dems shouldn't fall for that the way Bill Clinton did. Fool me once ... you can't get fooled again, as George W Bush famously said. Instead the Dems should implement their Green New Deal, excoriating fossil fuels and insisting on a transfer to renewable energy with all deliberate haste or ASAP, whichever comes sooner. They need to deal with the 40 million Americans who are living in extreme poverty and the ever growing number of homeless Americans, including homeless children and veterans.

Ending the wars in the Middle East, shutting down the 179 military bases in Germany and the 109 in Japan should be high on he Democratic agenda. Maybe they can work with Trump on that. His America First agenda calls for letting other advanced countries foot their own bills for their military defense. Why not work with him to accomplish that and use at least some of the money for enhanced border security?

Anti-War Voices: Of Course Trump Should Withdraw US Troops From Syria... and Afghanistan and Yemen and Iraq and...

Wednesday, December 19, 2018 by Common Dreams

 

"The US has been waging endless war for a generation, wasting trillions of dollars and costing countless lives, and we're no better off for it."

 

 

 

by 

Jon Queally, staff writer

 

 83 Comments

"President Trump is absolutely right to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria," said Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action. "President Obama deployed U.S. soldiers to Syria in violation of international law, and the ongoing U.S. presence there only serves to prolong the war and fuel the risk of confrontation with Russia, Iran, and other parties to the conflict." (Photo: DoD/flickr/cc)

Even as the Pentagon stammered and the retired generals, ex-CIA chiefs, and war hawks from both major political parties took to the cable news to warn against the prospect of less war—or at least U.S. involvement in them—peace groups on Wednesday afternoon applauded news reporting that President Donald Trump has ordered the withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from Syria.

"President Trump is absolutely right to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria," said Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, in response to reporting from the New York Times and others.

"President Obama deployed U.S. soldiers to Syria in violation of international law," he said, "and the ongoing U.S. presence there only serves to prolong the war and fuel the risk of confrontation with Russia, Iran, and other parties to the conflict."

The US should not have been in #Syria without constitutional authorization by #Congress. @realDonaldTrump is correct to cease our military presence. Now the US needs to support a political solution and humanitarian needs including helping refugees. https://t.co/qZuMWpejkU pic.twitter.com/rWO44Hj1FG

— Paul Kawika Martin (@PaulKawika) December 19, 2018

A troop withdrawal, Martin added, does not mean the U.S. cannot have a role in helping the Syrian people or securing a better future for the nation. "The U.S. can and should pursue a more active role in negotiations aimed at securing a political solution and a lasting peace in Syria, and should step up funding for humanitarian aid," Martin said. "President Trump should also rethink his administration's callous, discriminatory refugee policies and immediately increase the number of refugees allowed into the United States rather than continuing to shut our doors to Syrians fleeing a war that the U.S. has played such a significant role in."

My statement supporting decision by @realDonaldTrump to withdraw US troops from Syria. It was wrong when the Obama Administration took part in unauthorized war actions in Syria without a strategy. It was wrong for the Trump Administration to continue it. https://t.co/K8zONxPKnw

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 19, 2018

The anti-war and human rights group CodePink also applauded the prospect of all U.S. troops leaving Syria.

"We believe the U.S. withdrawal from Syria is a positive contribution to the peace process,"  said the group's co-founder Medea Benjamin. A withdrawal, she added, also "decreases the tensions between the United States and Iran that could have escalated the dangerous proxy wars that have been victimizing the Syrian people."

Putting focus on the war's countless victims, Benjamin said her group is calling "on all foreign powers that have been involved in Syria’s destruction, including the United States, to take responsibility for rebuilding this nation and providing assistance to the Syrian people, including the refugees, who have suffered so tragically for over seven years."

Benjamin said she further hopes that the decision will also mark the start of further reevaluation of U.S. troops stationed around the world. "This is particularly true in Afghanistan," she said, "where some 16,000 US soldiers are engaged in a war that is beginning its 18th year, and in neighboring Iraq, where the U.S. says it will maintain its presence with 5,200 troops stationed in the country. President Trump should continue to stand up to the neocons and the military-industrial complex that profit from endless war by bringing these troops home as well."

Martin agreed.

"As long as Trump is rethinking the U.S. role in Syria, he should also move to withdraw U.S. forces from the 17-year-old war in Afghanistan, and from the catastrophic Saudi-led war in Yemen," Martin said.

"The U.S. has been waging endless war for a generation, wasting trillions of dollars and costing countless lives, and we're no better off for it," he concluded. "We need a security strategy rooted in peace and cooperation rather than death and destruction. In the coming year, the new Congress should move to reclaim its long-lost authority on war so that these critical decisions are vetted by the people's representatives instead of left in the hands of one person."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Blunders into Doing the Right Thing

by John Lawrence, December 22, 2018

Getting the US out of Syria is the right thing to do. Ditto for that money pit - Afghanistan. Let us not forget that the purpose of going into Syria was regime change. The US wanted to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad with Russia's and Iran's help won the civil war so then the dialog has been all about ISIS. A little history is in order perhaps. Assad practices a flavor of Islam which is close to the Shiites. Assad is an ally of Iran which is majority Shiite. But the people of Syria are majority Sunni. It is just the opposite situation that existed in Iraq before the US invasion. There a majority Shiite population was governed by a Sunni government. By overthrowing Saddam and instituting a "democracy", Iraq became a country governed by Shiites allied with Iran. The Saudis, who are the largest Sunni nation in the Middle East and a US ally were saying the Arabic equivalent of "What the fuck?"

So Obama and Hillary in all their zest and zeal for "democratic values" were of the opinion that the US should institute "regime change" in Syria so that the majority Sunnis could be in power there. That would be lovely as far as the Saudis were concerned. However, please don't forget that ISIS is Sunni. ISIS was spawned by Saudi Arabia in their virulent Wahhabist schools which preach "Death to the West." Lest we forget, Usama bin Laden came from a wealthy Saudi family and 15 0f the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. So getting back to Syria, if the US had been successful in unseating Assad, it is likely that a Sunni caliphate aka ISIS would have taken over. In fact the US and ISIS were fighting for the same objective - a Syrian government dominated by Sunnis and allied with Saudi Arabia.

So getting out of Syria is the right thing to do. Hurrah for Donald Trump! Lindsay Graham needn't worry about ISIS taking over now. Assad, Russia and Hezbollah (Iran's proxy) will make short work of ISIS in Syria. The Kurds which had hopes of establishing an independent state in northern Syria - Kurdistan - will have to retreat into Turkey where they and the majority Turks are Sunnis. So the status quo ante will have been reestablished and the fighting will have ceased thanks to Trump's decision to declare victory and get the hell out of the way. (Actually, it was a US defeat, but what the hell.)

So to sum up, Syria will remain governed by Assad aligned with Iran and Iraq had a regime change which aligned it with Iran. US meddling in the Middle East has caused nothing but death and destruction and cost a trillion dollars which could have been spent more wisely at home rebuilding US infrastructure. Instead, we destroyed civilian infrastructure in the Middle East. The US is left with its human rights violating ally, Saudi Arabia minus an ally in Iraq, the legacy of being friends with the murderer of Kashoggi and a money pit in Afghanistan. Might we venture to say that US foreign policy is a shambles? A shambles that makes a mockery of human rights and allies itself with the worst actors? Oh what tangled webs we weave.

Off the Top of My Head

How America Is Treating Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians Whose Homes and Businesses It Destroyed in the Middle East: BENIGN NEGLECT!

by John Lawrence, December 12, 2018

Nick McDonell's latest book, "The Bodies in Person: An Account of Civilian Casualties in American Wars" details the destruction of civilian lives, homes and businesses that America has brought to the Middle East and the lack of compassion or compensation following in that wake. America knows how to destroy a country; it doesn't know or doesn't care to know how to rebuild it. Is it any wonder when America spends a trillion dollars a year on its machinery of destruction, the US military, and only $410 million on its Peace Corps, which if funded at the same level as the military might be able to rebuild what the military has destroyed?

McDonell writes in Time magazine:

It is fall in Mosul, the season’s first cool breezes blow off the Tigris, and I am walking around a 12th century castle with my friend Safwan. We have spent the morning scouting on behalf of an NGO dedicated to direct cash assistance. The surrounding blocks are destroyed, but several families are trying to move back anyway, clearing the wrecked Ottoman courtyards, stone by stone. They are excellent candidates for support, but Safwan, a soft-spoken 29-year-old engineer, remains frustrated. “There is no progress with the mass of destruction,” he says. “It needs effort from foreign countries and serious work from the government. Until now, we haven’t seen that.”

Safwan’s frustration is common in Mosul. Though the city was liberated from ISIS in 2017, millions of tons of rubble are yet to be cleared; 40% of old Mosul remains disconnected from any water network; electricity is erratic; in certain neighborhoods, corpses and IEDs remain on the roadside. Sixty-five percent of the city’s housing stock was damaged or destroyed; in the less damaged quarters, spiking rents drive families into debt, while a lack of jobs leaves young men idle in tea shops. The surviving hospitals and schools cannot support the population of 1.5 million; in the street, children orphaned in the battle beg for change, then curse those who refuse them.

This is how America leaves the cities it has "liberated." What's the old saying: "We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it."? Students for Liberty write on their website:

During the Vietnam War, a U.S. major justified bombing and shelling civilian areas in Bến Tre by saying “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” This statement evolved into the famous phrase “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” This quote explains a litany of state actions. Government officials and their supporters embrace a mindset of humanitarian imperialism and justify violence against innocent people, claiming that it is necessary to save those they brutalize.

This mindset is most obvious during wars of aggression euphemistically termed “humanitarian interventions.” For example, the U.S. government fired depleted uranium at Iraqi civilian areas in the name of “Iraqi Freedom.” This process of “liberating” Iraq also involved thousands of civilian casualties, as well as torture of detainees.

In order to fulfill their “responsibility to protect” Libyan civilians from Muammar al-Qaddafi’s violence, Western governments bombed civilians. This “responsibility to protect” also apparently entailed supporting forces that engaged in mass executions of political enemies and arbitrarily arrested and abused black Africans based on their race.

Others are saying it far better than I can. The US destroys countries - in the case of Iraq, the invasion was based on a lie - and then honors the President - in this case George W Bush - who lied America into war just because he wanted to be a war time President and surround himself with glory. Then America takes no responsibility for the lives it has destroyed. Instead, under Trump, it wants to keep the less fortunate out of the country club as only the more fit of humankind are deserving of the benefits thereof, certainly not any peons from "shithole" countries.

Off the Top of My Head

The World's Biggest Hypocrite

by John Lawrence, November 24, 2018

The CIA has traced the murder of Washington Post journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, directly to the door steps of one Mohammed bin Salman the Crown Prince of the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. Some call it a "kingdom," but that is a total euphemism. They even have a tape of Khashoggi being tortured and murdered which Trump refuses to listen to. Why? Because it might ruin his appetite? He doesn't want to hear the cries and screams? He doesn't want to hear those of the children of Yemen either as he continues to support the Saudis' war there which is creating a humanitarian crisis.

So while there is a direct link to Mohammed bin Salman in Khashoggi's murder, there is no evidence whatsoever that Vladimir Putin is responsible for the attempted murder of the Skripals in the UK. Yet the US establishment has pinned the blame squarely on Putin. The US is always accusing other countries and leaders of human rights violations like we're so pure. We'll slap sanctions on them without an iota of proof. Yet when an ally does it, why there is not a peep out of Trump. There are others to be fair that have stood up and said that Saudi Arabia committed a human rights violation. People like Lindsay Graham, bless his heart. There are still a few honest, unconflicted people in Washington, thank God. But the President of the United States is not one of them.

Trump brazenly says that his non condemnation of Saudi Arabia and Salman in particular is all about money. Yes, if there is money involved, it even justifies murder. It even justifies human rights violations. We wouldn't want to take jobs away from the weapons manufacturers. Killing innocents is their job, and it is very lucrative. Thank God, there are at least some decent people in Washington who want to stop the US supported war in Yemen. Isn't it enough that we have slaughtered over a million people throughout the Middle East?

With Statement Equal Parts 'Dangerous' and 'Imbecilic,' Trump Smears Khashoggi and Vows to Back Murderous Saudis

Published on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 by Common Dreams

"This Donald Trump statement—simultaneously pledging never-ending support for Saudi Arabia and blaming Iran for every Middle East problem—reads like a 6th grader's school report."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

67 Comments

President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media prior to his departure from the White House November 20, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In a bizarre, exclamation point-riddled statement on Tuesday that one critic said reads more "like a 6th grader's school report" than an official White House press release, President Donald Trump shrugged at the CIA's conclusion that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi—"maybe he did and maybe he didn't!"—and declared that the U.S. will continue to back Saudi Arabia because it is one of the world's largest oil producers, a major purchaser of American arms, and an ally in the "fight against Iran."

"This is, without a doubt, the most uninformed, imbecilic, toady, poorly-written, categorically untrue statement I have ever seen from a president of the United States."
—Joe Cirincione, Ploughshares Fund

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn just hours after his statement went public, Trump said Khashoggi's murder "is a very complex situation, it's a shame, but it is what it is."

"It's all about America first. We're not going to give up hundreds of billions of dollars in [weapons] orders and let Russia, China, and everybody else have them," the president added. "Saudi Arabia, if we broke with them, I think your oil prices would go through the roof. I've kept them down, they've helped me keep them down."

 

 

Off the Top of My Head

Why is George W Bush Being Honored?

by John Lawrence, November 20, 2018

Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed over a million people and now Joe Biden of all people presented him with the Liberty Medal on the hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I? Bush should have paid for his criminal acts, and instead he's being rewarded. He blatantly lied to the American people because he wanted to be a "war time President." Even the war in Afghanistan was ill conceived because Osama bin Laden was a Saudi living in Pakistan. What did Afghanistan have to do with it? Obama was duped too, by the way, into thinking that Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11. He continued that fruitless war.

If anyone other than bin Laden himself was responsible, it was our ally, Saudi Arabia, who contributed 15 of the 19 hijackers. But Trump wants to be friends with the Saudis even now after their leader has committed one of the most egregious human rights violations in human history by offing Jamal Khashoggi. Trump's rationale: they buy our weapons to kill Yemeni women and children and thereby create American jobs producing those weapons. Trump is all about creating American jobs even if they kill people.

Common Dreams put it this way:

We do know this: To make their splendid little war happen, Bush and his minions lied again and again — about "ticking time bombs" that had been unplugged years earlier, about weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and about ties between Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that never were. The Iraq war has destabilized the Middle East to this day and paved the way for the rise of a new anti-American group called ISIS that remains a murderous scourge. And it made the world safe for oil, right at the moment when the planet's survival depends on moving away from fossil fuels.

Has this guy no shame? Has this country no shame? Bush represented a new low in American politics until Trump came along who is even lower. Trump wants to stay friends with a murderer because he buys lots of weapons from the US, and Trump thinks he's protecting the jobs of the weapons makers. The US has sunk to a new moral low point when its economy depends on selling weapons to murderers.

So now even the Democrats want to rehabilitate George W Bush. He's one of us former Presidents - welcome to the club, by the way - so we can't let his reputation fall too low. He spends his time helping veterans and painting pictures. What's not to like? It turns out a lot. The destabilization of the Middle East. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of real estate. The killing of a million people. And that's just for starters. A fit tribute to George W Bush would be to send him to Guantanamo and let him linger there for the rest of his life being waterboarded from time to time.

Coalition Ignores Famine Warnings and Continues Assault on Yemen as Critics Question US Complicity

Published on Saturday, June 16, 2018 by Common Dreams

While senators demand answers from the Pentagon, anti-war advocates are calling the attack on Hodeida a failure by the U.S. to stop it and demanding an end to American military support for the coalition

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer

 

12 Comments

Women and girls line up to receive food aid on June 10, 2018 in Sana'a, the rebel-held captial of Yemen. About 70 percent of humanitarian assistance reaches Yemenis through Hodeida, a port city currently under seige by Saudi-led coalition forces. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)

Ignoring international aid groups' warnings that an attack on the Yemeni city of Hodeida, which is held by Houthi rebels, could exacerbate hunger in an impoverished and war-torn nation already on the brink of famine, Saudi-led U.S.-backed coalition forces continued a sweeping assault on the Red Sea port city Saturday, reportedly seizing control of an airport.

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel."
—Frederic Pelat, Médecins Sans Frontières

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel."
—Frederic Pelat, Médecins Sans Frontières 

Since the fighting started earlier this week, thousands of Hodeida's 600,000 civilians have evacuated and hundreds of people have been killed. The port city is the main conduit through which about 70 percent of international aid reaches Yemenis, many of whom are battling starvation and outbreaks of infectious diseases such as cholera.

The Norwegian Refugee Council's office in Yemen told Reuters that "humanitarian agencies cannot currently access areas south of the city where people are most likely to have been injured, affected, and displaced, leaving us without a clear picture of needs."

"The lack of humanitarian assistance, following suspension of aid programs and with limited NGO staff on the ground while a military offensive is ongoing, will have severe consequences on a region already facing restrictions on the import and internal transportation of vital supplies, including medicines, food, and fuel," Frederic Pelat, head of Médecins Sans Frontières' mission in Yemen, warned Thursday. "Yemenis living in the northern parts of the country depend on vital supplies that pass through Hodeida's port."

The port of #Hodeida is an essential lifeline for the country: more than 70% of all food, essential medicines and healthcare supplies are brought in through this port. #Yemen@DrTedros pic.twitter.com/lv1HENfWmf

— WHO Yemen (@WHOYemen) June 16, 2018

Martin Griffiths, the U.N. special envoy to Yemen, arrived in the Houthi-held capital Sana'a on Saturday after the U.S. and U.K. blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have called on coalition forces—which are being led by the United Arab Emirates in Hodeida—to immediately implement a ceasefire due to mounting fears that if the coalition takes control of Hodeida, the majority of Yemenis will be cut off from humanitarian assistance.

In an article published by The Intercept on Saturday, former White House and State Department officials, humanitarian leaders, and Yemen experts characterized the coalition's operation in Hodeida "as a major failure by the U.S. to restrain its coalition partners, who are largely dependent on American weapons, intelligence, and logistical support," and suggested "the attack was a sign that the U.S. is allowing allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to drive American policy decisions in Yemen."

Kate Kizer, policy director at the D.C. advocacy group Win Without War, noted that "rather than preventing the offensive, which the U.S. has done twice before, [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo [released] a weak statement giving the UAE the green light to potentially kill hundreds of thousands of people with no political strategy or end goal."

"The UAE's assault on Hodeida is just another example of the Trump administration outsourcing U.S. policy in Yemen—and really the region writ large—to the Gulf states," Kizer concluded. "Believing that this offensive will bring the Houthis to the negotiating table is living in a fantasyland."

On Friday, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis that acknowledged reports that the U.S. denied the UAE's request for "intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance" support for the Hodeida operation but still demanded answers about the U.S. military's ongoing assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.

.@SenMikeLee and I call on Sec. Mattis to immediately disclose the full extent of the U.S. military role in the Saudi-led war against Yemen’s Houthis and issue a public declaration opposing the impending assault on Hodeida. https://t.co/jZx5G2Je7i

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 15, 2018

The senators wrote,

We call on you to immediately disclose the full extent of the U.S. military role in the Saudi-led war against Yemen's Houthis, including the use of special operations forces; disclose any role that the Pentagon is currently performing, has been asked to perform, or is considering performing regarding an attack on the port of Hodeida; and issue a public declaration opposing this impending assault and restating the administration's position that Saudi Arabia and other parties to the conflict should accept an immediate ceasefire and move toward a political settlement to resolve the conflict.

Their letter on Friday followed a similar memo sent last month, which went unanswered, as well as a War Powers Resolution that the pair of senators, along with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), introduced earlier this year. While dozens of lawmakers were lauded by peace groups for backing that measure, which would have withdrawn U.S. forces from the war in Yemen, it was ultimately voted down by a majority of the Senate in late March.

In spite of that setback, anti-war advocates continue to push for congressional action to stop U.S. support for the war in Yemen:

Yemen. Can't. Wait.

Send a message to your Representative to act now to stop it from getting even worse: https://t.co/D9xKU0PwWt https://t.co/gRbdGg5OLA

— CODEPINK (@codepink) June 16, 2018

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

And What About Syrian Refugees?

by John Lawrence, April 14, 2018

Trump cares so much about the Syrian people that he unleashed a bomb attack on them, but what is he doing about the refugees that all this bombing and war making is creating? Is he resettling the victims of the horrific chemical attack? Where even are they, the ones that survived I mean? And what about the rising tide of refugees flooding Europe? How many has the US taken in?

Common Dreams reports:

"Under Trump, the number of Syrian refugees who have been granted asylum and resettled by the U.S. has plummeted, dropping from more than 12,000 in 2016 to half that number last year. Less than 100 of the war-torn nation's 5.5 million refugees are expected to be allowed into the U.S. by the end of the current fiscal year in September."

I see. We will get all morally outraged and bomb Syria, but when it comes to taking in refugees from that shithole country, forget it. Or maybe by seeming to be a tough President who doesn't let those who are morally inferior get away with anything, he is seeking to detract Americans from his seemingly endless litany of scandals. All the payoffs by his lawyers to porn stars. Of course all his "Christian" base loves all the titillation. It's nice to have one of their National Enquirer stars in the White House. Well, after all , all the scandals have been in the past, right? Trump hasn't fucked a porn star since landing in the White House, has he? He must then have been rededemed, washed in the blood or some such shit as that. Not like that Clinton who had an aid give him a blow job right there the the Oval Office!

No wonder Paul Ryan resigned. He was an upstanding Christian whose only goal was to screw poor people and aid and abet the rich, Ayn Rand style. When it came to sex, he was a tried and true family man. Maybe a whole lot more Republicans will up and resign because they can't stand their own hypocrisy and support for an irrational nincompoop who has sullied the reputation of the US.

This tweet hit it on the nose:

So far this year Donald Trump's America has accepted just 11 Syrian refugees and Britain isn't much better. So it's galling to hear Theresa May talk about the urgent need to bomb Syria to save the lives of innocents. #NotInMyNameTheresaMay

— Harry Leslie Smith (@Harryslaststand) April 14, 2018

Showing They 'Learned Nothing' From Iraq, Corporate Media Help Beat War Drums for Trump Attack on Syria

Published on Wednesday, April 11, 2018 by Common Dreams

"Pundits and the media are making John Bolton’s wildest dreams come true: in his first week on the job, everyone is calling for a new war."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

89 Comments

MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi contemplates President Donald Trump's best military options during a news segment on Wednesday. The options presented ranged from a "small strike" to "more damaging strikes" to "strikes on Russian and Iranian bases" inside Syria, but never considered this option for his viewers: no strikes at all. (Photo: MSNBC/Screenshot)

With America's major corporate cable outlets—particularly so-called liberal networks like MSNBC—continuing to uncritically provide generals and lawmakers a massive platform to beat the drums of war as President Donald Trump inches closer to launching a military attack on Syria, critics have concluded that the U.S. media has clearly learned nothing from the crucial role it played in cheerleading for the Bush administration's catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"It's incredible how readily the cable news channels have politicians on pushing for war in Syria with almost no questions asked about how disastrous it might be or the so-called evidence."
—Cenk Uyger, The Young Turks

"The push for escalation on TV is overwhelming," Cenk Uyger, host of The Young Turks, observed in a tweet on Wednesday, reacting to the numerous instances this week of television hosts opining on Trump's "military options" with the likes of Iraq War supporter and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey while refusing to question the underlying rationale for or legality of unilateral military action.

"It's incredible how readily the cable news channels have politicians on pushing for war in Syria with almost no questions asked about how disastrous it might be or the so-called evidence," Uyger added. "They pretended to learn lessons from Iraq but have actually learned nothing."

As media critic Simon Maloy lamented in a column at Media Matters, the behavior of much of the corporate media "indicates how alarmingly comfortable much of the mainstream press is with the idea that the president can just up and decide to initiate military hostilities whenever, wherever, and for whatever reason—even when there is no actual reason at all."

Almost entirely absent from the prevailing discussion of Syria on America's cable networks in recent days—which one journalist described as "a parade of one war hawk after another"—has been any mention of the alternatives to military action.

Exemplifying this total exclusion of peaceful options was a segment on Wednesday by MSNBC's Ali Velshi, who provided his viewers with a quick rundown of the possible actions the president could take in Syria—from "small strike" to "more damaging strikes" to "strikes on Russian and Iranian bases"—without ever mentioning one major choice: no airstrikes at all.

Watch:

After telling Russia to "get ready" for missile strikes in Syria, @AliVelshi takes a look at President Trump's military options. pic.twitter.com/RxtLYzLcvt

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 11, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, argued on Twitter that the corporate media's relentless elevation of pro-war voices since the Assad regime was accused of carrying out a chemical attack on Sunday is "making John Bolton's wildest dreams come true."

As Common Dreams reported, Bolton officially took over as Trump's national security adviser on Monday as the White House weighed whether to strike Syria militarily.

"In his first week on the job, everyone is calling for a new war," Timm noted.

Pundits and the media are making John Bolton’s wildest dreams come true: in his first week on the job, everyone is calling for a new war.

— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) April 11, 2018

With outlets like CNN and MSNBC leaving a massive vacuum by refusing to raise even the most basic questions about the Trump administration's push for military action in Syria, Tucker Carlson of Fox News has been one of the few cable hosts to criticize the rationale for war and offer a platform to an anti-war voice.

In an appearance on Carlson's primetime show Tuesday night, The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald argued that it is the "standard tactic" of the corporate media to smear opponents of U.S. wars in an effort to shut down legitimate questions about the rush toward military action.

"This climate arises that you're just supposed to cheer when it comes time to drop bombs on other countries, not ask whether there's evidence to justify it, not ask whether it will do any good, not ask whether it will kill any civilians," Greenwald said. "And if you do ask one of those questions it means you're on the side of America's enemies. It's an incredibly authoritarian tactic that gets used to suppress debate."

Watch:

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

How to Start World War III in a Box

by John Lawrence, April 13, 2018

Start bombing Russians in some Shithole Country with No Strategic Value for the US after Said Russians Have Just Won Proxy War for Some Tinhorn Dictator

The US, who likes to preach to the world about human rights and moral ethics, having just supported Saudi Arabia in killing Houthi children in Yemen, is outraged about a chemical attack in Syria which it alleges was carried out by said tinhorn dictator. So nutcase dictator Trump says, "We'll see what we shall see." Having lost the war in Syria, the US is preparing to restart it again. Only this time Syria is loaded with Russian military men and equipment. What could go wrong here?

The US has no moral superiority, chemical attack or no chemical attack. It has ravaged the whole Middle East in a process by which the outcome was determined to be that the US' enemy, Iran, was handed the reins in the Middle East. Funny, you fight a war the outcome of which is that some third party, namely your enemy, comes out the winner. Smart strategic thinking here. Then thinking that it's not too late to restart a war you've already lost, you return to the fray led by a nutcase President and a shithole-destroying Secretary of Defense.

Since Obama did not cross the red line he projected with his laser pointer, Trump wants to have a go at it. His turn to get embroiled in the Middle East, this time fighting Russians as well. Makes sense. The US lost the war once. Maybe this time will be different. The first time you had a rational man as President; this time you have a looney tunes. But Lockheed Martin needs the business. Might as well crank up the war expenditures especially after you've given the US billionaires a helluva tax break which is in the process of running up the US budget deficit by a trillion dollars a year. Question is: who is going to buy all that US debt? Or maybe the question is who is going to dump US Treasuries creating a real financial crisis?

The US has lost whatever moral stature it had in the world under President Obama and whatever residual moral stature it had after WW II. Now it is just seen as the world's bully, a hypocrite on human rights which supports Saudi Arabia , a country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. If the US public was smart, they'd get rid of the joker in the White House and all his Republican friends, and increase their moral stature by apologizing for the debacle they wrought in the Middle East.

Off the Top of My Head

What Does the US Bombing Syria Accomplish?

by John Lawrence, April 11, 2018

Now Trump wants to send a missile strike to bomb Syria because Assad unleashed a chemical attack that killed innocent civilians. Modern warfare is war against civilians. Any attack against civilians chemical or otherwise is deplorable, but that is what war in the 21st century consists of. And that goes for the million civilians killed by the US in the Middle East too. Trump sending a missile strike to Syria will only kill more civilians, and what would it accomplish? The fate of Syria has already been decided. Assad, Russia and Iran won. The US lost. The purported chemical attack was a mopping up operation against a small pocket of resistance to Assad's regime. What strategic goal will the US accomplish by sending a missile strike and killing more civilians? Answer: nothing.

So the US, although irrelevant as a player in Syria and increasingly the whole Middle East, is just throwing its weight around there just because we can do it with no goal in mind. A slap on the wrist to Assad? Assad has already won. Is it we're just showing our moral superiority by reacting to something so horrible Assad and Russia and Iran have done? We'll show them. We'll kill more civilians the conventional way - with conventional bombs, not chemicals. So we'll send a couple million dollars' worth of missiles over there which will accomplish nothing except Lockheed Martin will probably get another contract for replacement missiles and bombs. After all we can't let our stock get too low.

Politico reports:

Experts have suggested that plans for Trump's promised strike against Syria in response to the latest chemical attack are complicated by an apparent lack of an overall strategy to address the ongoing conflict there. Because the first strike failed to deter the use of chemical weapons, a second strike would likely be more severe, potentially including the use of American warplanes, a riskier step because of the threat one could be shot down, as opposed to the cruise missiles the Trump administration launched last year.

The Syrian government has denied responsibility for the chemical weapons attack and Russia, its close ally, blocked a United Nations Security Council resolution Tuesday that called for an independent investigation to establish whether or not the Assad regime had deployed such weapons against a civilian population. ...

Trump’s Wednesday morning warning to Russia seemed a response to remarks from Alexander Zasypkin, the Kremlin’s ambassador to Lebanon, who said Tuesday, according to Reuters, that “if there is a strike by the Americans, then...the missiles will be downed and even the sources from which the missiles were fired.” Zasypkin said his comments about a U.S. missile strike echoed remarks from Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian military chief of staff.

So the only strategic goal that the US might achieve is to get into a war with Russia over an attack that killed 40 people? Nice going, Trump. A fitting culmination to the mind boggling insanity and monumental bungling starting with George W Bush's lying us into war in Iraq which only resulted in Iran taking over Iraq. Then came the incompetent bumbling of the whole Middle East strategy resulting in practically the whole Middle East being controlled by Iran and now the slaughter of innocents in Yemen by our ally Saudi Arabia carried out with US bombs and weapons.

Wouldn't it have been better to give peace a chance? Do Americans even care about this latest travesty?

Off the Top of My Head

US Complicit in Saudi Slaughter of Yemeni Children

by John Lawrence, March 11, 2018

The Saudis are ruthlessly and relentlessly slaughtering the Yemeni people, and they're doing it with American weapons. As if the US hasn't done enough damage in the Middle East, it continues its perfidious behavior by selling weapons to its ally, Saudi Arabia. The export of American weapons fuels the fighting and the tragedy in the world. Is the US directly responsible for what's going on in Yemen? No. Is it indirectly responsible? Yes.

This is from the Washington Post:

The Nov. 9 editorial “The crisis in Yemen” called attention to the effect of Saudi Arabia’s blockade on famine in Yemen. It mentioned the lack of media attention to the Yemeni tragedy, which includes “the fastest-growing cholera epidemic ever recorded” and “the world’s biggest food emergency.” It said that Saudi Arabia bears heavy responsibility for the crisis for its “ruthless but unwinnable war.” But it did not mention direct U.S. military complicity in this long and pointless campaign.

In addition to selling a vast arsenal of weapons to Saudi Arabia, our government’s military gave logistical guidance in the Saudi military headquarters in Riyadh and continues to provide intelligence to Saudi defense officials and aerial refueling during bombing runs. The Saudi-led coalition could not have conducted the two and a half years of bombing without the support of our military. In recent years, our military has carried out innumerable raids on the terrorist group al-Qaeda in Yemen, but al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have taken advantage of the Saudi-led campaign to seize territory and expand their activities in the Arabian Peninsula. There is a move afoot in the House and the Senate to end U.S. involvement in this tragic war. It is time to pass legislation to end it.

The US has been the world's biggest war monger in the Middle East ever since George W Bush's invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein. It has not been a steady hand on the tiller stabilizing the world or creating peace in the world. Its war industry makes its blood money off of defense contracts and weapons sales. Internally it's a war of all against all as the NRA insists on arming everyone - even teachers, for God's sake. There is no attempt to put any money or energy into peacemaking activities either here or abroad.

In addition the US has allied itself with the devil in allying itself with the Saudis. The Saudis are the main sponsor of ISIS which is the terrorist group the US is trying to eliminate. Helping the Saudis only encourages ISIS. It's time to ditch the alliance with Saudi Arabia. We don't need their oil any more anyway. It's only killing the planet.

Off the Top of My Head

US Influence in Middle East is Waning Despite Tons of Money Spent There

by John Lawrence, March 8, 2018

The Middle East is a region where two countries - Iran and Saudi Arabia - are vying to be the dominant players there. Iran is Shia Muslims and Saudi Arabia is Sunnis. The US failed to see what was really going on there and the fact that the Shia-Sunni split is the chief factor in determining whose side anyone was on. Iraq was a majority Shiite country with a Sunni governing elite including Saddam Hussein. When the US eliminated him, they delivered Iraq into Iran's sphere of influence, not the outcome the US, allied with Saudi Arabia and the enemy of Iran, wanted.

Saudi Arabia is a much more regressive country than Iran, but a deal was made to ally with them because of oil. Their religion Wahhabism teaches a particularly vile form of terrorism and has resulted in the major terrorist organizations being developed including ISIS and al Qaeda. Usama bin Laden was a Saudi Sunni. 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. The truth about 9/11 and the links to Saudi Arabia were covered up. The US is not being honest about the fact that it delivered Iraq to the chief enemy of its ally.

In Syria al Asad is a member of a religious sect related to Shia Islam. That's why Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, is fighting to keep al Asad in power. The US placed a red line there and then, when it was crossed, did nothing about it. The Middle East is becoming dominated more and more by Iran and less and less by Saudi Arabia. The US is on the wrong side of history. It made a huge mistake removing the democratically elected prime minister Mossadeq and installing the Shah in 1953. It did this at the behest of Britain because Mossadeq nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Islamic revolution of 1979 overthrew the Shah.

9/11 can be seen as an event that came about because the US did not repudiate the religious sect of its ally, Saudi Arabia, which preached overthrow of the West. Because of oil the US alienated Iran and allied itself with a country that would spawn the worst terrorist attack on the US mainland in history. And now because of oil, the whole world is under assault due to global warming. Oh, what tangled webs we weave!

Damning New Study Helps Explain Why Pentagon Will No Longer Release Afghan War Updates

Published on Wednesday, January 31, 2018 by Common Dreams

It's the longest war in U.S. history, but it appears the military no longer wants the world to see how badly it's going

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

25 Comments

The United States' indefinite occupation of Afghanistan has now left the Taliban in control of more territory than in 2014.  (Photo: QOR Museum/Flickr/cc)

As the Pentagon is rebuked for withholding from the public information about the U.S. military's activities in Afghanistan, new reporting reveals that—more 16 years after the U.S. began its occupation—the Taliban has open and active presence in about 70 percent of the country, and ISIS has gained more territory than ever before.

On Tuesday, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) criticized the Department of Defense for refusing to release data on several Afghan districts, after the Pentagon determined it was "not releasable to the public":

The number of districts controlled or influenced by the Afghan government had been one of the last remaining publicly available indicators for members of Congress...and for the American public of how the 16-year-long U.S. effort to secure Afghanistan is faring. Historically, the number of districts controlled or influenced by the government has been falling since SIGAR began reporting on it, while the number controlled or influenced by the insurgents has been rising—a fact that should cause even more concern about its disappearance from public disclosure and discussion.

While the Afghan government asserts that it controls most of the country, the BBC reported Wednesday, "Months of research across the country shows that the Taliban now control or threaten much more territory than when foreign combat troops left in 2014."

According to SIGAR's last report, released in October, the Taliban only controlled about 40 percent of Afghan districts just last July.

About 15 million Afghans, or half of the country, now live in areas controlled by the Taliban or at risk of Taliban control. In parts of the country where the group is most open and active, attacks now take place about twice a week.

More than 31,000 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan since American troops arrived in October 2001, with more than 8,500 injured or killed in 2017. Twenty-four hundred American troops and hundreds of foreign soldiers have also been killed since the war began.

The BBC report also follows several recent attacks claimed by Taliban fighters and ISIS, the most recent being a bombing carried out by an ambulance that was driven into the center of Kabul last Saturday. At least 122 civilians have been killed in attacks over the past several weeks.

Last August, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan indefinitely, and on Monday, contradicting his previous claims, he rejected peace talks with the Taliban.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

The US Should Get Out of Afghanistan

by John Lawrence, February 2, 2018

For me personally Trumps' SOTU speech represented a congeries of agitprop which rankled the cockles of my mind. That said, why is the US engaged in a never ending money and life pit in Afgfhanistan when the Taliban are not international terrorists? They are insurgents only interested in taking over Afghanistan, not exporting terrorism elsewhere. Of course the US role in fighting them there has not endeared them to the US, but continuing to fight there is a huge waste of American money and lives. It was Obama's "logical" answer to George W Bush's war in Iraq. Logical because the 9/11 hijackers supposedly were from Afghanistan.

But were they? Fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon. What none from Afghanistan? Sorry, Obama, your mistake just as it was George W Bush's mistake to invade Iraq based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. So why didn't you invade Saudi Arabia instead since most of the hijackers were from there. No matter, the military-industrial complex doesn't object to an injection of money regardless of the pretext. And after all Saudi Arabia is our ally. We couldn't invade them.

So don't give me this shit about how bad the Taliban is in its application of Sharia law. Trump was going to put America first. If pulling out of Afghanistan means the Afghanis have to suffer, so be it. It is none of our business. The Taliban can attack at will regardless of the American presence there. 17 years after the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban can still do a terrorist attack in the heart of Kabul killing over 100 people and wounding over 200. The US presence there is futile. America First means cutting our losses. But that's just a slogan. Trump is totally on board with the Republican agenda of ever increasing and constant war.

The US will never admit a mistake. All the blood and treasure flushed down the drain in the Middle East means that we have to continue doing it or admit defeat. Well, we admitted defeat in Vietnam and just got out. It's time we did that in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. Putting America First mean not fighting futile wars where we have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

The US thinks it can fight wars AND cut taxes. There's just no money for a decent health care system or for social security and Medicare. The rich and powerful have their priorities, and the hoi polloi can be swayed by agitprop.

Complicit: America’s ‘Non-War’ Crimes in Yemen

From Truthdig, November 24, 2017

by Major Danny Sjursen

Yemeni children present documents in order to receive food rations from a local charity in Sanaa, Yemen, in April. (Hani Mohammed / AP)

The “Four Famines”: That’s what aid workers call the swell of man-made humanitarian catastrophes replete with disease, hunger and civil conflict—forgotten countries few Americans could locate on a map, across an equatorial band stretching west to east through Nigeria, South Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

Inhabited by brown people, Muslims mostly, none of the four receive much attention in the United States’ 24-hour news cycle. Perhaps they should; after all, in at least one case—Yemen—there’s blood on Americans’ collective hands. Only don’t expect the public to lose much sleep over the potential for millions of Yemeni deaths. There are Trumpian tweets to dissect and reality TV dramas unfolding for all to see at the helm of the crumbling republic.

For two full years now, Saudi Arabia—a petro-state of strict, Islamist, Wahhabi extremists—has dropped American-made precision guided munitions on Yemeni “rebels” and civilians alike. Saudi fighter-bombers commute daily to the slaughter zone, courtesy of in-flight refueling missions flown by the U.S. Air Force. How nice.

Almost no one knows the backstory, understands the incessant suffering or contemplates the consequences, both moral and strategic. Why should the American public care? There’s no military draft, no new taxes, no food or fuel rationing on the homefront. Besides, unless one subscribes to the BBC, there’s almost no media coverage of the shadow war in Yemen.

Predictions are always tricky, but here’s one: Americans will come to regret their government’s role in Yemen as millions perish and al-Qaida/Islamic State rise ever more powerfully, like a mythical phoenix. The late Chalmers Johnson and the CIA call it “blowback”: The empire’s proverbial chickens come home to roost.

Off the Top of My Head

The Real Reasons Hillary Should Have Lost

by John Lawrence

The Republicans and their associates, the anger mongers, conjured up a whole host of fake news and fake allegations about Hillary Clinton, and that evidently was enough to make her lose the 2016 Presidential election. But there were real and valid reasons why Hillary should have lost, and these were rarely mentioned except by Bernie Sanders.

#1: Hillary was too cozy with Wall Street. She followed the Obama administration in this regard. No banker was jailed after Wall Street fraud collapsed the economy in 2008. The Democratic party has relied on Wall Street as its funding source and so is essentially allied with them. No harm could come to Wall Street if a Democrat was elected. Wall Street feted Hillary by paying her $250,000. for a speech. This is a ridiculous amount of money to sit on Lloyd Blankfein's or Jamie Diamond's lap and deliver a speech. It was just another investment by Wall Street which thought like everybody else that Hillary would win.

#2: Hillary, like Obama before her, had a major role in destabilizing the Middle East. Of course the major destabilizer here was George W Bush who lied the American people and the world into believing he had a valid reason for invading Iraq. Bush's invasion was not only brutal in the sense that many innocent people died and had their real estate destroyed, but that eliminating Saddam gave rise to ISIS and also in the fact that Iraq is not under Shiite control but is allied with our supposed enemy Iran which is also Shiite. Before the invasion Iraq was under Sunni control and was allied with Saudi Arabia, which is also Sunni, and our supposed ally. So Bush was the major culprit here in a geopolitical sense. Make sense?

Nevertheless, Obama and Hillary thought they could bring "democracy" and "freedom" to the Middle East by getting rid of dictators like Mubarek, Gaddafi and al-Assad, and let the young people take over, the so-called Arab spring. Naive! It didn't work; it just led to further encroachments by terrorist rogue groups. So Hillary along with Obama is responsible for that error in judgment and should have had to pay a price for that. Instead she paid a price for all the fake news and allegations the Republicans and the hate mongers ginned up.

If the Democrats want to be relevant in the ongoing political doings, they need to disassociate themselves from their funding source, Wall Street, and issue a mea culpa about their destabilizing undertakings in the Middle East. Bernie Sanders demonstrated that on both counts it could be done. The US needs to disassociate itself from Saudi Arabia which is a major human rights violator which spawned al Qaeda and ISIS. By any account Iran is far more democratic than Saudi Arabia which is a dictatorship controlled by the House of Saud. Religions other than Islam are not only tolerated but constitutionally protected in Iran. Not so in Saudi Arabia. Women have far more rights in Iran than in Saudi Arabia and constitute the majority of college students there. Iran has a written constitution and tolerates debate about politics. Saudi Arabia labels anyone speaking out against the House of Saud a terrorist.

I hate to say it, but the USA is on the wrong side of history. It has allied itself with Saudi Arabia because they agreed to sell oil only for dollars and not any other currency. But the days of fossil fuels like oil dominating the world economy are nearly over as the use of renewable energy continues to grow while fossil fuels diminish in the world economy. I hope there is a party that can point out the preset day realities about oil and the Middle East and admit the mistakes the US has made there. I don't know if the Democratic party is capable of doing that.

Unlike Most Western Leaders, Corbyn Demands End to US-UK Complicity in Yemen's Suffering

Published on Tuesday, November 21, 2017 by Common Dreams

In letter to Prime Minister Theresa May, British Labour leader slams the West's role in arming Saudi Arabia and perpetuating world's worst humanitarian catastrophe

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

8 Comments

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses delegates on the final day of the Labour Party conference on September 26, 2017 in Brighton, England. (Photo: Leon Neal/Getty Images)

While most political leaders and U.S. media outlets continue to perpetuate the "power-serving" notion that the West has played little to no role in causing and worsening Yemen's humanitarian crisis, U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn penned a letter to Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday slamming American and British forces for fueling the Saudi-led bombing campaign and demanding an independent war crimes investigation.

"Whilst the immediate priority should be humanitarian assistance to Yemen, it is time the government takes immediate steps to play its part in ending the suffering of the Yemeni people."At least 10,000 people have been killed since the conflict started in 2014 and 7 million people are in extreme hunger. Food shortages and the cholera outbreak are a direct result of the continuing blockade of Yemen by the U.S.- and U.K.-backed Saudi-led coalition," Corbyn wrote. "Whilst the immediate priority should be humanitarian assistance to Yemen, it is time the government takes immediate steps to play its part in ending the suffering of the Yemeni people."

The "devastation and destruction in Yemen" Corbyn highlights has been ongoing for years while garnering relatively little attention, but in recent days the crisis has increasingly been spotlighted by American media outlets—albeit with one "glaring" omission.

As journalist Adam Johnson notes in a piece for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), U.S. coverage in particular has peddled a "reductionist narrative" that accurately singles out Saudi Arabia for criticism but conveniently leaves out the fact that the Saudis rely heavily on the U.S., the U.K., and Canada for weaponry, ongoing military intelligence, and political support.

In contrast to the dominant media narrative, Corbyn's letter places the American and British role in arming Saudi Arabia front-and-center.

"Note how Corbyn doesn't just flamboyantly lament the destruction of Yemen as if it's a natural disaster, nor does he lay blame on other countries," observes The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald. "He explicitly notes his own government's key role in it. U.S . media could learn from that."

.@jeremycorbyn demands Government acts to end suffering of the Yemeni people https://t.co/bOL6AX3qzh

— Labour Press Team (@labourpress) November 20, 2017

Corbyn's demand that the U.K. and U.S. take responsibility for their role in sustaining what has been deemed the worst humanitarian crisis in the world comes as the U.N. is calling on Saudi Arabia to end a blockade that is preventing food and medicine from entering Yemen. According to the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, thousands more Yemenis could die per day if the country's ports remain closed.

After Trump Calls Gulf Nation "High Level" Funder of Terrorism, US Sells Qatar $12 Billion in Fighter Jets

Published on

Thursday, June 15, 2017

 

by Common Dreams

"Ah yes. Take that, Qatar! Feel the wrath of the Trump..."

 

by Common Dreams staff

 

 

5 Comments

 

A U.S. Air Force F-15 fighter jet does a low-level flyby over Forward Operating Base Bostick in eastern Afghanistan January 1, 2009. REUTERS/Bob Strong/File photo

Just days after President Donald Trump publicly scolded Qatar for being a "high level" exporter of regional terrorism in the Middle East, its government announced Wednesday the signing of a deal to buy $12 billion worth of F-15 fighter jets from U.S. weapons makers.

The Pentagon justified the massive sale by saying the jets—reportedly 39 of them—would increase "security cooperation" between the two countries.

Pointing towards the glaring hypocrisy, journalist Jeremy Scahill quipped, "Ah yes. Take that, Qatar! Feel the wrath of the Trump..."

Last Friday, Trump told reporters at a White House press conference that "Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level." The president then said he had decided to take a harder line with the country.

Oil-rich Qatar is home to a major U.S. airbase in the region and a longtime ally, but the latest weapons sale comes amid boiling tensions in the region centered around ongoing wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen as a well as a diplomatic crisis between members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

And NBC News notes:

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates cut diplomatic and transport ties with Qatar last week and accused it of supporting terrorism and regional unrest.

Despite these allegations, Qatar is a crucial ally to Washington in the Middle East. It is home to 10,000 American troops and a major American military base that acts as the center of U.S. operations in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like Scahill, historian and Middle East expert Vijay Prashad, said the weapons sale in this context, if not surprising, is telling:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License