Look who is calling on GOP leaders to revoke their endorsements of Donald Trump!, Obama, the great clumsy Inspector Clouseau of all time foreign policy, this title fits his role in the White House since he has had no sense of what he wanted to do in the world as his foreign policy has not been leading anywhere but nowhere. Hey inspector, you are the last person on earth, whom with 8-years record of totally failed policies, the GOP members want to even listen to! Donald Trump responded to Inspector’s call, saying he has been a failed leader who along with secretary HRC created a foreign policy that has destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi, made not only the region but the whole world unsafe, and concluded both of them are unfit to be president.
The democratic machine backed by the corrupt DNC, whose conspiracy against Sanders to make him the loser in the Primary election has been exposed by Wikileaks, and the Clouseau administration that are responsible for the last 8 years of failing of not only the U.S. but the whole world in all grounds, cunningly and insidiously are running a fixed election with the support of mercenary Medias to put their pathological liar, an inept slacker, and a dangerous-to-national-security, nominee, the criminal HRC, in the White House. America needs to wake up and stand against the on-going corrupt system to protect the endangered democracy and the will of the people, as they say, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves”. Democratic Party and their members under the guidance of the Clouseau administration have become the Muslim ass kissers; they misuse a Pakistani Muslim family in their conventional propaganda to create a bizarre ado about nothing in order to contempt the other Party and its nominee!
I am neither a republican nor a democrat, furthermore personally I am not a fan of Trump but what he said about the Islamic terrorists was in no way disrespect to the Muslim family and their son. However so long as there are American leaders like Inspector Clouseau in the White House and his former Secretary of State, the HRC, who in fact care for Islam more than Muslims themselves (as Persian proverb says,” A bowl which is hotter than the soup”) to the point of undermining the very driving force behind the act of terrorism across the globe, the Islamic ideology, we cannot expect the Islamic societies to unbiasedly confront the issue of Islamic terrorism.
The situation becomes more chaotic when the republican leaders join this coward voice of “Political Correctness” to appease the ideology of Islam and its followers. To those, including Clouseau administration, DNC and its members, and all republicans, who think that these barbarian acts of terror all around the world has nothing to do with Islam, I say “you are burying your heads in the sand”. The core of Islam is founded on Quran, without this book there is no Islam. There are 164 Jihad verses in Quran that are associated with the offensive war commanded to kill the pagans and humble, the Christians, and Jews, which is what is still in force today and are pursued by Muslims, allegedly radical Islamists. For genuine and authentic Muslims, religion is their everyday policy of life, and their everyday policy of life is nothing other than their religion. This is the point that the followers of “Political Correctness” are undermining.
So, why so much denial and perseverance on using “Political Correctness”? We have to go back to the “nation of sheep and government of wolves” notion to find the truth. It is because the western hegemony wants to accredit the imbecilic nations around the world by putting the Islamic chains around their necks as their slave puppets so that they can abuse their human/civil rights and facilitate plundering their natural wealth. What the puppeteers have undermined all along is the scenario when this “Political Correctness” becomes counterproductive and starts to backfire on them. Hasn’t the backfire already started to ignite?! [DID]
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama skewered Donald Trump on Tuesday over his criticism of the parents of a Muslim U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq and said the Republican presidential nominee is unfit to succeed him in the White House. Mr. Obama, responding to a question at a news conference, also called on GOP leaders to revoke their endorsements of Mr. Trump rather than simply denounce his comments. “The Republican nominee is unfit to be president,” Mr. Obama said. “He keeps on proving it.
“The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job,” the president added.
In a statement, Mr. Trump linked his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, to the president’s record. “They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office,” Mr. Trump said. Read more…
Russia fills the vacuum in Syria and U.S. welcomes it. Contrary to what the mainstream Medias have fed the public asserting U.S. and Russia remain at odds over their objectives in Syria, there has never been a change in US position; in fact there hasn’t been any disagreement between US and Russia on the roadmap strategy in the Middle East. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been planned and exploited by the World Powers in the Middle East to create instability, destruction and chaos throughout the region generating the necessary conditions toward reshaping and redrawing the map of the regional states and their political fragmentation.
Broad economic, strategic, and military objectives are main part of a longstanding World Powers’ agenda in the region. New sources of energy in the Central Asian region, Eastern Mediterranean, and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain giant reserves of natural gas and oil, access to which and sharing in their potential wealth represent objectives that motivate corporate interests, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. It is all about the World Powers’ new world orders, under which New Middle East is created in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives. [DID]
WASHINGTON (AP) — Signaling a possible escalation of U.S. military action in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Tuesday that the United States is retooling its strategy in Iraq and Syria and would conduct unilateral ground raids if needed to target Islamic State militants.
The U.S. has done special operations raids in Syria and participated in a ground operation to rescue hostages last week in northern Iraq that resulted in the first U.S. combat death in Iraq since 2011. Carter did not say under what circumstances the U.S. might conduct more ground action, but said, “Once we locate them, no target is beyond our reach.”
“We won’t hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground,” Carter said, using an acronym for the militant group. Read more…
Last week, you were super-busy in Europe, warning Vladimir Putin not to invade eastern Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Moscow’s takeover of Crimea is a done deal, and there’s even more worrying stuff going on elsewhere. Your CIA chief, John Brennan, just told a House panel that al-Qaeda central is now using Syrian territory to train Western jihadis to attack Europe and America.
In Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?), Taliban bombers are threatening this week’s elections. They are getting help from the intelligence services of our supposed ally Pakistan even as we prepare to exit the country. Equally worrying, the Pakistani Taliban are wreaking havoc inside nuclear-armed Pakistan, whose government has no apparent strategy to counter them – except to beg for peace.
Hypothetically consider that we have a “Wooden Stick” as our President, would that make any different global perspective of US credibility from what we already have under the presidency of the one currently in the Oval Office? The answer would be a big “NO” since both are the MASTERS OF INACTION!! [DID]
President Obama is such a weak strongman. What’s more, he is a feeble dictator and a timid tyrant.
That, at any rate, is Republicans’ critique of him. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Obama’s critics pivoted seamlessly from complaining about his overreach to fretting that he is being too cautious. Call it Operation Oxymoron.
Last Wednesday, I sat in a House hearing and listened to Republicans describe Obama exercising “unparalleled use of executive power” and operating an “uber-presidency.” They accused him of acting like a “king” and a “monarch,” of making the United States like a “dictatorship” or a “totalitarian government” by exercising “imperial” and “magisterial power.”
But after events in Ukraine, this very tyrant was said to be so weak that it’s “shocking.”
“We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proclaimed Sunday on CNN. Read more…
The Israelis and the Saudis both know that the Mullahs in Iran do not take the Obama’s threat of using force seriously, that they are great cheaters and can easily evade the international observers, and that they are just buying time to get the nuclear bomb. [DID]
ONCE they were sworn enemies. Now Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency is working with Saudi officials on contingency plans for a possible attack on Iran if its nuclear programme is not significantly curbed in a deal that could be signed in Geneva this week.
Both the Israeli and Saudi governments are convinced that the international talks to place limits on Tehran’s military nuclear development amount to appeasement and will do little to slow its development of a nuclear warhead.
As part of the growing co-operation, Riyadh is understood already to have given the go-ahead for Israeli planes to use its airspace in the event of an attack on Iran.
Both sides are now prepared to go much further. The Sunni kingdom is as alarmed as Israel by the nuclear ambitions of the Shi’ite-dominated Iran. Read more…
Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the strongest advocates of an American military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. He was unhappy when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for an attack, and then unhappy when his fellow lawmakers voiced disapproval of the president’s plan. Graham believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.
Given all that, Graham now says he will work with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a resolution authorizing the president to use military force — not against the Syrian regime but against Iran. In an appearance on Fox News’ Huckabee program over the weekend, Graham argued that such a resolution is essential, because American inaction in Syria will encourage Iran to go forward with its nuclear weapon program, eventually leading toward a Mideast conflagration if the U.S. doesn’t intervene. Read more…
Is President Obama pursuing a foolish policy aimed at appeasing Iran? Or is his outreach a sensible move that signals he is moving, as John B. Judis, puts it in the New Republic, towards realpolitik?
Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal is scoffing at Obama’s speech at the United Nations yesterday. Obama sounded a cautious note: “The roadblocks may prove to be too great but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.” But the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s refusal to meet with Obama at the U.N. General Assembly meeting sent the Journal into transports of rage. It was nothing less than “an expression of lordly contempt for what Iranian leaders consider to be an overager suitor from an unworthy nation.” At the same time, opposition to Obama’s more concessive tack is also manifesting itself on Capitol Hill, where Senator Marco Rubio headed a group of Republican legislators Read more…
If the US loses its sense of historic purpose, then what is it? Just a place to go to get rich
There is only one winner in the ongoing shambles of the West’s policy on Syria, and it is not Bashar al-Assad. Mr Assad and his regime are now locked into the familiar slow suicide march of the modern dictatorship which ends eventually in execution or exile. That will come later rather than sooner because of the shameful political gamesmanship of the countries on which his victims should have been able to rely, but – count on it – it’s just a matter of time. No, the grand-slam, record-breaking, knock-out winner of the past week has been Vladimir Putin, who graciously thanked the British Parliament on Friday for its support in his quest for global domination. Surely every British and American politician who declares that military intervention would be acceptable only with the permission of the United Nations must know that he is handing Mr Putin – with his blocking vote on the Security Council – the power to run the world? Or at least, to determine the fate of some of the most oppressed parts of it. Read more…
An aerial attack on Syria will only protract the Assad survival; it would be a pass for him to continue even more decisively slaughtering his own people. What is the difference if the people are killed by WMD or Conventional weapons? The goal of assault on Syria must have been based on humanitarian objectives that respect the lives of human beings, and not a reluctant response, just to do something, for silencing the national critics with respect to US feckless foreign policy. If so then Assad has to be arrested and put on trial for his crimes against humanity, nothing less should be the outcome of such raid on Syria. [DID]
After years of hectoring for American action against Assad, the prospect of American action against Assad makes me sad. Obama seems to be readying a strike of some kind against the author of the atrocity at East Ghouta, the suburb of Damascus whose name has entered the rolls of contemporary evil, alongside Halabja and Srebrenica and Rwanda. Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians—or more accurately, his latest use of chemical weapons against civilians: according to Dexter Filkins’s Syrian sources, he has used them 35 times—was one crime against humanity too many for the president. The administration is now speaking in somber hawkish tones and leaking to reporters various possibilities for the deployment of air power. There was some fussing about verifying that Assad was in fact responsible for the horrors, which reminded me of Clemenceau’s jibe about the complexity of the origins of World War I—that whoever started it, it wasn’t Belgium. Read more…
In the war of ideas for the future of Egypt, the Brotherhood had nothing to offer but the blood of its followers and victims. It has no new ideas. It has no record of accomplishments. It has no vision for the future except the same old corruption and authoritarianism cloaked in a deceptive Islamist garb.
The outcome of any interaction with the Brotherhood could have been predicted from its motto; “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” Read more…
I’ve contended in previous posts (here, here and here) that President Obama’s failure to enforce his numerous threats against the use of chemical weapons by the Bashir al-Assad regime in Damascus is a significant reason to doubt the credibility of his repeated vows to use military force to stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. So is my argument undermined now that Mr. Obama has decided to provide light weapons to rebel forces in Syria, ostensibly in reaction to the use of sarin, a lethal nerve gas? Quite the reverse: As I see it, his actions and the ambivalent manner by which they were signaled provide further support for my case.
Consider the stated rationale for the arms decision. Just two months ago, the White House reluctantly acknowledging the likelihood of chemical weapons use in the country’s increasingly volatile civil war. Read more…
As the Obama administration seeks to move beyond a welter of scandals, a new report by investigative journalist Patrick Poole reveals that the frenzy isn’t quite over yet. On top of the IRS’s targeting of conservatives, the DOJ’s seizure of reporters’ phone records and the coverup surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the White House’s years-long collaboration with supporters of terrorism is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves. Poole’s comprehensive GLORIA Center article, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” details the Obama administration’s extensive relationship with accomplices to terrorism and how these associations have shaped administration policy — and endangered the American public in the process. As Middle East expert Barry Rubin commented on the report, “[Y]ou may think that you know this story — but it is far more extensive than has ever before been revealed.”
The primary question at the heart of Poole’s report is simple:
Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations ‘moderates’ and embraced them as outreach partners? Read more…