John Oliver's bit on objecting to Trump's statements about Hillary and Obama being the founders of ISIS

Just watched John Oliver's bit on objecting to Trump's statements about Hillary and Obama being the founders of ISIS. As a USAF Staff Sergeant who follows the events, this is what I have to say. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4yj7fn/just_watched_john_olivers_bit_on_objecting_to/

For those that may be lost when Trump talks about Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIL, here is a quick guide to what he is talking about.
Diplomatic cables were leaked in reference to the intentions of the U.S. government to overthrow the government of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad. The cables basically stated that the U.S. Intended to install a US-backed puppet-government in Syria and the Al-Assad could either step aside and let us do just that or that we would force him out. Bashar Al-Assad basically told the United States to go fuck themselves and thus began the financial and support campaigns for rebels in Syria on behalf of the U.S, foreign policy that we have conducted many times in the past.
Rewind...In 2005, former Army 4-star General Wesley Clark leaked, very publically, stated that shortly after 9/11 the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned the overthrow of 7 countries over the course of 5 years. What were those countries? Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Sudan. Think about what has happened in those countries over the last 16 years... Enter John McCain, the catalyst that was used to finance ISIS. Sound hard to believe? Go to Google and type in ‘John McCain ISIS.’ You will find a treasure trove of pictures of John McCain in the same room and posing with Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, one of the founding members of ISIS, in 2013 when McCain went to Syria to facilitate arms trades to rebel factions in Syria. There is also a massive amount of footage of John McCain stating he has friends in the rebellion in Syria and that he is in frequent contact with them. We provided cash, weapons, and various supplies to the rebel factions. We are still providing this aid to "moderate" rebel factions to this day, all of which are aligned and have treaties with ISIL. When Hillary Clinton is questioned, she will use to following excuses:

1. She is the head of the state department, her job is to serve the objectives of U.S. Foreign Policy, as directed by the President of the United States.
2. The parties supported were “freedom fighters” fight a oppressive regime. Any actions, such as beheadings, torture, extermination based on religion, was unknown and not condoned.
3. The regime mentioned used chemical weapons and violated laws of armed conflict(which will later be dispelled).

For those that think that sounds far fetched, here is a list of over 50 countries that the CIA worked to overthrow over the last 70 years. Just to set the record straight, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, these are countries that were were overthrown by the CIA’s Special Activity Division and is a part of history; not theory, not made up bullshit; this all actually happened and is openly admitted to by the United States government and has been documented by multiple reputable sources.
(This is hearsay) Supposedly the death of Chris Stevens in the Beghazi attacks were brought about because Ambassador Stevens was going to blow the Whistle on the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, for funneling weapons, supplies, and fighters in to Syria out of Libya, violating the Logan Act. The accusation implicating Hillary Clinton in the death of Chris Stevens is that sensitive information was purposely made available to local terrorist cells in Benghazi and Quick Reaction Forces were recalled when requests for support were made, thus facilitating the assassination of Chris Stevens and silencing his potential expose of Hillary Clinton.
(As mentioned previously)So what about this whole talk that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons against civilians and rebels? Well that information was found to have been altered by the United States media to garner support for war against Syria in 2013. The BBC was caught blantantly falisfying evidence and stated the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks. The MSM was forced to drop the narrative after multiple exposes revealed that the MSM altered the footage and blamed the Syrian Government when in fact it was the Free Syrian Army and Al-Nusra that launched the attacks, a rebel faction that was heavily funded and supplied by the United States Government. The U.N. even later made statements clearing the government of Syria and blamed rebel factions for the attacks.
When the government campaigned for war to support the al-Qaedia backed rebels, this is when we saw troops posting pictures in their uniforms with signs stating “I didn’t join the United States military to support al-qaeda in Syria.” After massive amounts of similar pictures and likely very stern statements being said, the United States was forced to drop the narrative all together to avoid a mass mutiny within the U.S. Military, though there exists some statements that "soft-coups" did occur within the Pentagon in 2015.
The purpose of funding these factions was that through US aid the rebels would overthrow Bashar Al-Assad and we could then install a puppet government.
All this information is public and evidence is readily available and ranges from high-ranking leakers to diplomatic cables to former members of the DoD coming forward admitting that the U.S. founded ISIS through funding rebels to overthrow the government of Syria.. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC wont be reporting this information. Why? These news sources are bought and paid for by the U.S. Government. Does that sound far fetched? Well, here is CNN, award winning reporter, Amber Lyon, stating that multiple governments pay CNN, and other news agencies, to report and fake news stories and highlight news stories that put governments in a positive light.
The narrative is now aimed to demonize Russia, the biggest country that is actively wiping out ISIS in Syria and is directly supporting the government of Syria. Why do we demonize Russia? There exists residual cold-war hatred of Russia and Russia has publically denounced the globalist objectives of the United States. Russia is also allied with Syria and since we are using rebel factions and ISIL to facilitate the removal of Bashar Al-Assad, the same people we claim to be against but are using to facilitate regime change, we are inherently against them.
Bombing of hospitals? Both sides did it. Why? Both sides are at the mercy of shitty intelligence objectives by blowing up the hospital of their enemies. Both the United States and Russia and have bombed hospitals. Only the United States had bombed schools full of children, as well, in multiple theaters of war, many times. And if you want to make the argument that somehow the United States is above other countries bombing the wrong targets, I have personally worked with contractors that were led to believe that their targets were valuable targets only to watch small children flee burning buildings after airstrikes.
It is important to note that what I have laid out transcends both republican and democratic parties and that what is happening today isn’t a democrat problem, nor a republican problem; it is a bad government and foreign policy problem that has been dictated at echelons above the government. Hillary Clinton is at the very tip of the spear and will continue the diplomatic objectives that were laid out under the Bush, continued by the Obama administration, and will lead us further down the path of war, the loss of our troops, and further drive us in to debt under the guise of spreading democracy and freedom.
This has to stop. The problems we face today were created by us to fuel the war-machine. Our economy prospers while millions suffer and our only effort in solving the problem is to throw more gas on the fire so that a select few politicians and corporations make financial gains. Stop Hillary. Elect Trump. Make the media transparent again.
Stay focused on this issue because what is happening in Syria will be the catalyst for future events. This is important extremely important, and my words cannot impart how significant the coming months will be in regards to Syria and the elections.

John Oliver's bit on objecting to Trump's statements about Hillary and Obama being the founders of ISIS

Just watched John Oliver's bit on objecting to Trump's statements about Hillary and Obama being the founders of ISIS. As a USAF Staff Sergeant who follows the events, this is what I have to say. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4yj7fn/just_watched_john_olivers_bit_on_objecting_to/

For those that may be lost when Trump talks about Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIL, here is a quick guide to what he is talking about.
Diplomatic cables were leaked in reference to the intentions of the U.S. government to overthrow the government of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad. The cables basically stated that the U.S. Intended to install a US-backed puppet-government in Syria and the Al-Assad could either step aside and let us do just that or that we would force him out. Bashar Al-Assad basically told the United States to go fuck themselves and thus began the financial and support campaigns for rebels in Syria on behalf of the U.S, foreign policy that we have conducted many times in the past.
Rewind...In 2005, former Army 4-star General Wesley Clark leaked, very publically, stated that shortly after 9/11 the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned the overthrow of 7 countries over the course of 5 years. What were those countries? Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Sudan. Think about what has happened in those countries over the last 16 years... Enter John McCain, the catalyst that was used to finance ISIS. Sound hard to believe? Go to Google and type in ‘John McCain ISIS.’ You will find a treasure trove of pictures of John McCain in the same room and posing with Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, one of the founding members of ISIS, in 2013 when McCain went to Syria to facilitate arms trades to rebel factions in Syria. There is also a massive amount of footage of John McCain stating he has friends in the rebellion in Syria and that he is in frequent contact with them. We provided cash, weapons, and various supplies to the rebel factions. We are still providing this aid to "moderate" rebel factions to this day, all of which are aligned and have treaties with ISIL. When Hillary Clinton is questioned, she will use to following excuses:

1. She is the head of the state department, her job is to serve the objectives of U.S. Foreign Policy, as directed by the President of the United States.
2. The parties supported were “freedom fighters” fight a oppressive regime. Any actions, such as beheadings, torture, extermination based on religion, was unknown and not condoned.
3. The regime mentioned used chemical weapons and violated laws of armed conflict(which will later be dispelled).

For those that think that sounds far fetched, here is a list of over 50 countries that the CIA worked to overthrow over the last 70 years. Just to set the record straight, this isn’t a conspiracy theory, these are countries that were were overthrown by the CIA’s Special Activity Division and is a part of history; not theory, not made up bullshit; this all actually happened and is openly admitted to by the United States government and has been documented by multiple reputable sources.
(This is hearsay) Supposedly the death of Chris Stevens in the Beghazi attacks were brought about because Ambassador Stevens was going to blow the Whistle on the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, for funneling weapons, supplies, and fighters in to Syria out of Libya, violating the Logan Act. The accusation implicating Hillary Clinton in the death of Chris Stevens is that sensitive information was purposely made available to local terrorist cells in Benghazi and Quick Reaction Forces were recalled when requests for support were made, thus facilitating the assassination of Chris Stevens and silencing his potential expose of Hillary Clinton.
(As mentioned previously)So what about this whole talk that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons against civilians and rebels? Well that information was found to have been altered by the United States media to garner support for war against Syria in 2013. The BBC was caught blantantly falisfying evidence and stated the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks. The MSM was forced to drop the narrative after multiple exposes revealed that the MSM altered the footage and blamed the Syrian Government when in fact it was the Free Syrian Army and Al-Nusra that launched the attacks, a rebel faction that was heavily funded and supplied by the United States Government. The U.N. even later made statements clearing the government of Syria and blamed rebel factions for the attacks.
When the government campaigned for war to support the al-Qaedia backed rebels, this is when we saw troops posting pictures in their uniforms with signs stating “I didn’t join the United States military to support al-qaeda in Syria.” After massive amounts of similar pictures and likely very stern statements being said, the United States was forced to drop the narrative all together to avoid a mass mutiny within the U.S. Military, though there exists some statements that "soft-coups" did occur within the Pentagon in 2015.
The purpose of funding these factions was that through US aid the rebels would overthrow Bashar Al-Assad and we could then install a puppet government.
All this information is public and evidence is readily available and ranges from high-ranking leakers to diplomatic cables to former members of the DoD coming forward admitting that the U.S. founded ISIS through funding rebels to overthrow the government of Syria.. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC wont be reporting this information. Why? These news sources are bought and paid for by the U.S. Government. Does that sound far fetched? Well, here is CNN, award winning reporter, Amber Lyon, stating that multiple governments pay CNN, and other news agencies, to report and fake news stories and highlight news stories that put governments in a positive light.
The narrative is now aimed to demonize Russia, the biggest country that is actively wiping out ISIS in Syria and is directly supporting the government of Syria. Why do we demonize Russia? There exists residual cold-war hatred of Russia and Russia has publically denounced the globalist objectives of the United States. Russia is also allied with Syria and since we are using rebel factions and ISIL to facilitate the removal of Bashar Al-Assad, the same people we claim to be against but are using to facilitate regime change, we are inherently against them.
Bombing of hospitals? Both sides did it. Why? Both sides are at the mercy of shitty intelligence objectives by blowing up the hospital of their enemies. Both the United States and Russia and have bombed hospitals. Only the United States had bombed schools full of children, as well, in multiple theaters of war, many times. And if you want to make the argument that somehow the United States is above other countries bombing the wrong targets, I have personally worked with contractors that were led to believe that their targets were valuable targets only to watch small children flee burning buildings after airstrikes.
It is important to note that what I have laid out transcends both republican and democratic parties and that what is happening today isn’t a democrat problem, nor a republican problem; it is a bad government and foreign policy problem that has been dictated at echelons above the government. Hillary Clinton is at the very tip of the spear and will continue the diplomatic objectives that were laid out under the Bush, continued by the Obama administration, and will lead us further down the path of war, the loss of our troops, and further drive us in to debt under the guise of spreading democracy and freedom.
This has to stop. The problems we face today were created by us to fuel the war-machine. Our economy prospers while millions suffer and our only effort in solving the problem is to throw more gas on the fire so that a select few politicians and corporations make financial gains. Stop Hillary. Elect Trump. Make the media transparent again.
Stay focused on this issue because what is happening in Syria will be the catalyst for future events. This is important extremely important, and my words cannot impart how significant the coming months will be in regards to Syria and the elections.

Retired Green Beret Blasts "Make No Mistake, Everyone Warning About Clinton Is A Target And They Are Marked"

by Tyler Durden

Aug 8, 2016 10:25 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-08/retired-green-beret-blasts-make-no-mistake-everyone-warning-about-clinton-target-and 

Submitted by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne)) via SHTFPlan.com,
The Obama Administration has been characterized by not only a lack of transparency on issues that surface, but a deliberate obfuscation to mask true actions and intentions.  There are literally no limits to what the man and his handlers will do outside of the law to attain their ends, while simultaneously “crafting” legislation to enslave the citizenry.  The fawning, lying press trumpets his victories and quietly spins his defeats: objectivity cannot be maintained by journalists on the government payroll and command.
Hence a sitting American president, a man who should have been hauled off of a stage in 2012 and clapped in irons for treason is able to do whatever he wants.  Remember?

“Tell Vladimir I’ll have more leeway after the election.”

Now the Congress and the State Department labeled Iran both a “rogue state that supports terrorism” and “a supporter of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda.”  So my question is where did Obama secure the necessary Congressional approval to airlift $400 million to Iran on January 17, 2016?  More: Since this was Obama’s move, did he not use his position unilaterally and without any Congressional approval to provide funding to a nation that supports (and conducts direct action missions to complement) terrorist activities?  And this is with Iran, that vows to strike the U.S.?

Just as in the same vein, how can we join Russia in a bombing campaign of “boogeyman” ISIL/ISIS when we, the U.S., created it?

Just as in the same vein, how can we send a QRF (Quick Reaction Force) of our military’s finest commandos to stop the slaughter of an American ambassador and his staff in Libya…when we approved of and enabled it?
The “administration,” if you prefer that ludicrous term to the true state, the “regime,” is made of Teflon…nothing can touch it.  Fast and Furious proved it.  Hillary’s e-mails proved it.  The cashiering of half of the admiralty and general staff of the United States Armed Forces proved it.  The removal of TARS, of the scrambling of fighters, the scrapping of the A-10 Warthog, the cessation of Tomahawk production…all of these measures prove it.  Obamacare steamrolling through the (at the time) Democrat-controlled Congress…enabled by Senator Olympia Snow (R, Maine) proved it.  The hearings and the deciding vote.
Nothing can stop the administration.  Nothing.  And nothing will be able to stop the next one.
Does everyone really think that Trump will be elected?  Really?  Throughout the past two weeks, he has literally run on “self-destruct” and must have a lobotomized campaign manager.  Haven’t we seen this before, when Romney won the first debate and made a fool out of Obama, and then turned into a neutered eunuch for the next debates?
Do not be fooled: it is all intentional.
There is no such thing as an election, only a controlled paradigm shift with a force-fed theatrical playbill that the dumbed-down public gobbles up.  The two “camps” of Democrat and Republican, and the illusion of a colossal battle, a political “Clash of the Titans” between conservatism and socialism drawing the focus and attention of the people away from surrounding events nationally and in the world.
Look at Hanna, the alleged Republican…the first of the jackasses to come out and support Hillary Clinton.  Look at the moneyed interests pooling behind her: Meg Whitman, Warren Buffet, and the invisible but ever-present incubus of George Soros, the man who destroys countries for a hobby and a price.  Look at Hillary, the “good wife,” the “good mother,” the “good 501-C-3” member with a billion dollar “kitty” in the Clinton Foundation and three Delaware shell corporations to hide her loot.  The “good speaker,” snagging $50 – 200 K dollars per speech.
The good fundraiser who raised $90 million dollars in the month of July alone.

By her campaign slogan… “I’m with Her” …by those very words are such notables as James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Houma Abedin, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz…all of them…complicit with her in the crimes she has committed.  She would provoke a nuclear war with Russia in order to prevent those e-mails from coming to light.
Her “candidacy” is a degradation and an abasement, not only of the American Justice system, but of the entire Constitution of the United States and the freedom of every citizen.  Those who are “with her” don’t even realize they’ll be the first ones in the gristmill when the time arrives.  That time is almost here.  It’s all been smoke and mirrors, but soon there won’t need to be.  The obfuscations and treacherous maneuvers are masked but in a short time they’ll all be completely unveiled.
The 2^nd Amendment will be completely destroyed and/or nullified.  The face of this entire country is going to change, and akin to most bad things, it’ll have to happen before people realize it and take action.
Everybody who criticizes the incoming dictator is marked, make no mistake about it.  We still have a little bit of time, but not much, and effects generated need to have substance, not form.  No juvenile displays of occupying a shed/storage room/visitor center in a National Park or Forest.  No standoffs with a disbandment and then everyone is arrested individually.  The torch is being passed.  Everyone who is criticizing Obama and warning about Clinton is a target and they are marked, along with countless others of the 325 million of us.
If Hillary Clinton takes the presidency, it is the end of the United States.

Obama and Clinton Are Endangering All of Us

Posted on May 25, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/57448.html

I am a lifelong FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) Democrat and therefore am anything other than prejudiced against the Democratic Party. But, that Party died when Bill Clinton became President and undid FDR’s regulations on the megabanks and FDR’s AFDC income program for children in poor families, and when Clinton replaced that with restoration of Wall Street’s control over America (like before FDR, only a more convoluted form of it).

However, the way in which both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton endanger all people’s lives and property and health and welfare, has to do with something else, something that’s even more evil than what Bill Clinton did, and it’s the Obama-Clinton (that’s Secretary of State and now Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton) foreign policy, to overthrow the leaders of nations who are allied with or supportive of Russia — such as most recently Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, but before that Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych, and before that Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. It’s no mere coincidence that all three had had cordial relations with Russia.

George W. Bush’s 2003 overthrow of yet another pro-Russian head-of-state, Saddam Hussein, had already done enormous damage not only to Iraq but to the U.S., and yet Obama and Clinton are at least as determined to surround Russia by enemies, as Bush was; and they now even support the installation, on-and-near Russia’s very borders, of a ‘Ballistic Missile Defense’ system that’s designed to disable Russia’s ability to retaliate against a U.S. surprise nuclear attack on Russia — the BMD is astoundingly aggressive, especially considering that whereas in 1991 the Soviet and then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev terminated both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact on the basis of an understanding from George Herbert Walker Bush and his agents, that NATO would not move “one inch to the east”, this crucial promise from the U.S. government was violated by Bill Clinton’s extending NATO into the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland; and by Bush’s son Bush then extending NATO into Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia; and by Obama then extending NATO into Albania and Croatia and trying to bring into it also Ukraine and some other nations bordering or near Russia.

American President JFK didn’t allow the Khruschev regime to place nuclear missiles 90 miles from the U.S. in Cuba in 1962, and Russian President Putin can’t stand the Obama regime to place nuclear missiles right on Russia’s borders, but it’s happening now, and it endangers us all — not only the Russian people.

Furthermore, with the support of both U.S. President Obama and his neo-conservative former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (famous for her psychopathic “We came, we saw, he died, ha ha!!” comment), NATO’s current Secretary General and other top people at NATO are now increasingly beating the drums for war against Russia, and are using for ‘justification’ of it the very same lie that both Obama and Clinton do, as Obama has stated it: Russia’s alleged ‘conquest’ of Crimea. As I have documented headlining “The Entire Case for Sanctions Against Russia Is Pure Lies”, there was no such ‘conquest’, and even Western-sponsored polls of Crimeans both before and after Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to reject the newly imposed February 2014 Obama-engineered coup-government of Ukraine and to rejoin Russia of which Crimea had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954, showed the very same overwhelmingly high level of public support for rejoining with Russia that was shown in the plebiscite-results.

The U.S. government accepts the right of self-determination of peoples, so that the residents of Scotland can vote to separate from the UK if they wish, and the residents of Catalonia can vote to separate from Spain if they wish, but where it comes now to the right of the residents of Crimea, who had voted 75% for Viktor Yanukovych and who were disgusted by Obama’s overthrow of him, to separate from the newly-imposed Obama-coup-regime in Kiev (and even the head of Stratfor called it “the most blatant coup in history”), Obama and Clinton reject that same right for the Crimean people. Why do they reject it? They have to do this, in order to support NATO’s war-buildup against Russia, and support their surrounding Russia with extremely dangerous missiles. (In fact, Russia’s alleged ‘seizure’ of Crimea is even the ‘justification’ that Obama gives for his economic sanctions against Russia; so, he’s deep into lying about it.)

The expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders proves NATO’s (that’s to say, the U.S. aristocracy’s, and its subordinate national aristocracies represented in NATO) aggressive intent against Russia. Putin had done everything he could to have friendly relations with America, but now under Obama the relationship has plunged into clearly a pre-war situation, not only in Syria, and Ukraine, and elsewhere on Russia’s borders, but in American propaganda against Russia. The addition of installation now of BMD is flashing to all Russians the extreme-danger signal, and if Russia therefore launches a surprise nuclear attack against the U.S. at some time before the BMD becomes fully operational, the blame for it belongs to George Herbert Walker Bush, and Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, and all who have lied so viciously against Russia and who so blatantly violated the promise that the George Herbert Walker Bush regime had made to Gorbachev in 1990.

Fair is fair, regardless of the particular nation, and unfair is unfair, regardless of the particular nation; and, in this case, clearly, the U.S. government has been extremely unfair to the Russian people, and so the Russian government’s patience with the lies of the U.S. government and of its NATO stooges, might have a limit that precedes activation of BMD — this would mean a Russian first-strike (and they won’t warn about it in advance). They don’t want to be sitting ducks. And they all know that only fools think that disabling an opponent’s ability to retaliate is only a defensive act. Any intelligent person knows that it can be also an extremely aggressive act. And the coup in Ukraine, which started to be organized in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than 1 March 2013 — a year before the coup itself — was an extremely hostile and aggressive act against not only Yanukovych, but also against Russia.

The way in which Obama and Clinton are endangering all of us is that, if Russia waits and the BMD (which itself is ‘justified’ only on the basis of lies) that’s now starting to be installed, turns out to work, then only Russia will immediately be reduced to nuclear char; but, if it doesn’t work, then both sides will be destroyed; and, if Russia doesn’t even wait to find out, but instead strikes first, then only the U.S. and maybe other NATO nations will immediately be destroyed; and, in any case, the level of nuclear contamination of the entire world, and the amount of earth that will be thrown up into the high atmosphere and generate a global freezing (“nuclear winter”) that will be just as extreme and far more sudden than the otherwise global warming, will make life not even worth living.

Obama and Clinton aren’t the only Americans who are pushing this needless vile brinksmanship, but it is needless; it’s entirely unnecessary, and, on the U.S.-NATO side, it’s based clearly upon lies; so, the U.S. government must repudiate it and halt the BMD, right now.

If there’s anything sane that’s still remaining in American politics, this issue will be the central issue of the 2016 Presidential campaign. Because, if things continue drifting in the way that they have been drifting, then the world-as-it’s-always-been-known will soon end, and what replaces it will become hell-on-Earth, everywhere. And America’s leaders will have been the cause of it.

Any Presidential candidate who doesn’t condemn both Obama and Clinton for it, has got no rational justification for receiving anyone’s vote. Because, if the next U.S. President doesn’t forthrightly repudiate and reverse this pathological policy, then we’d all better somehow join the aristocracy and buy deep nuclear bunkers, with years of supplies to outlast the first phases of nuclear decay. Except that the people who have already done so are fools for even wanting to live in such a post-war world. But at least they’re smart enough to recognize that things are heading in this direction.

The only solution to it is to avoid electing Presidents such as the ones we’ve been electing. Instead, to elect a President who condemns them — and for the sane reasons, not for other, insane, ones. Because this issue is too important to continue any insanity.

Senate Passes Bill That Would Expose Saudi Arabia's Role In Sept. 11: Obama Veto Imminent

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/17/2016 13:36 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-17/obama-veto-imminent-after-senate-passes-bill-would-expose-saudi-arabias-role-sept-11
After a month-long scare campaign waged by Saudi Arabia, and in no small part the Obama administration, which went so far as to threaten it would dump its US Treasurys (which the NYT previously had quantified as $750 billion however which the Treasury just yesterday disclosed for the first time in 41 years as only $117 billion suggesting the Saudis would likely also have to sell US stocks and any other US-denominated assets), if the US were to pass a bill that would hold it legally liable for the Sept 11 attacks, it will be up to Obama to veto the bill because moments ago the Senate unanimously passed said bill, bringing Congress closer to a showdown with the White House, which has threatened to veto the legislation.
The Senate’s passage of the bill, which will now be taken up in the House, is another sign of escalating tensions in a relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia that once received little scrutiny from lawmakers.
As reported a month ago, the Obama administration has urgently lobbied against the bill, and the Saudi government has warned that if the legislation passes it might begin liquidating its USD reserves. Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the warning to lawmakers and administration officials while in Washington in March.
Many economists are skeptical that the Saudis would deliver on such a warning, saying that the sell-off would be hard to execute and would do more harm to the kingdom’s economy than to America’s.
As the NYT reports, questions about the role Saudi officials might have played in the terror plot have lingered for more than a decade, and families of the Sept. 11 victims have used various lawsuits to try to hold members of the Saudi royal family and charities liable for what they allege is financial support for terrorism. But these moves have been mostly blocked, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from suits in American courts.
But the Senate bill carves out an exception to the law if foreign countries are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill American citizens inside the United States. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.
The administration has warned that any weakening of the sovereign immunity law could put American troops, civilians and corporations at legal risk if other nations decide to retaliate with their own legislation. Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, said last month that President Obama would veto the bill if it reached his desk in its current form.
Earnest repeated the same warning moments ago, which means that if the House endorses the Senate bill, Obama will be put in the unpleasant spot of having to veto a bill which to many Americans is a critical milestone in figuring out if Saudi Arabia was indeed behind the September 11 bombings, and further lead to questions why Obama is defending a Wahhabist regime which has been repeatedly implicated in the biggest terrorist attack on US soil, and flagrantly rejecting to follow the will of the US electorate.

Lawmakers To Obama: Don't Supply Syrian Rebels With Stingers

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/05/2016 22:50 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-05/lawmakers-obama-dont-supply-syrian-rebels-stingers
Authored by Brendan McGarry via DoDBuzz.com,

More than two dozen U.S. lawmakers are urging President Barack Obama to refrain from supplying Syrian rebels with American-made shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.
The 27 members of Congress, led by Reps. John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, and Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida, on Tuesday sent a letter to the president “urging him to maintain his policy of refusing to transfer shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) to Syrian combatants,” including those trained by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency.
The missiles are primarily designed to target helicopters. One type is the FIM-92 Stinger, made by Raytheon Co., whose use against Soviet aircraft in Afghanistan during the 1980s was popularized by the book and movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War.”
“While we may have differing perspectives regarding the appropriate US response to the horrific violence in Syria, we agree that MANPADS would only lead to more violence, not only in Syria, but potentially around the world,” Conyers said in a statement released Wednesday by his office.

The release cites an April 12 article in The Wall Street Journal by Adam Entous that reported the CIA and its partners in the region had prepared plans to arm moderate rebels in Syria with more potent weapons than the Soviet-era BM-21 “Grad” truck-mounted rocket launchers:

The agency’s principal concern focuses on man-portable air-defense systems, known as Manpads. The CIA believes that rebels have obtained a small number of Manpads through illicit channels. Fearing these systems could fall into terrorists’ hands for use against civilian aircraft, the spy agency’s goal now is to prevent more of them from slipping uncontrollably into the war zone, according to U.S. and intelligence officials in the region.

Coalition partners have proposed ways to mitigate the risk. They have suggested tinkering with the Manpads to limit how long their batteries would last or installing geographical sensors on the systems that would prevent them from being fired outside designated areas of Syria. But Washington has remained cool to the idea.

Syrian rebels have also reportedly acquired other U.S.-made weaponry.
A YouTube video published Feb. 26 appears to depict a Syrian rebel in Sheikh Aqil, a town near Aleppo, firing a BGM-71 TOW (for tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided) missile at a T-90 tank, Russia’s main battle tank that entered service in the 1990s, presumably operated by Assad forces.

U.S.-backed rebels in the country may have acquired both the older TOW, developed in the 1970s and also manufactured by Raytheon, as well as the newer FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile, developed in the 1990s and made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Corp.
In his letter, Conyers cites recent instances in which extremist organizations captured U.S.-supplied weaponry in Syria:

In late 2014, the headquarters of the CIA-backed militia Harakat Hazm — one of the biggest recipients of U.S. arms including powerful TOW anti-armor missiles — was overrun by Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s primary Syrian affiliate. Harakat Hazm fled its positions, leaving behind many of their weapons that were seized by al-Nusra. Last September, Syrian rebels vetted and trained by the United States handed over their equipment to the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, and just last month, Nusra attacked a Western-backed rebel faction, taking over bases and seizing U.S.-supplied weapons including antitank missiles.

Army Captain sues Obama over ISIS fight

Published time: 5 May, 2016 04:26

Get short URL

© Lucas Jackson / Reuters

An Army Captain is suing President Barack Obama, arguing that the war against Islamic State is illegal because it has not been authorized by Congress.

“Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, when the President introduces United States armed forces into hostilities… he must either get approval from Congress within sixty day to continue the operation, in the form of a declaration of war… [the] President did not get Congress’s approval for his war against ISIS in Iraq or Syria… the war is therefore illegal,” said Captain Nathan Michael Smith, a military intelligence officer, in court documents filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday.
The court documents say that the 1973 War Powers Resolution was enacted by Congress to prevent presidential overreach and protect Congress’ right to vote on whether and when to go to war. The resolution was created after Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon escalated the war in Vietnam and extended it into Laos and Thailand as a general “war against communism.”
Captain Smith, 28, was commissioned in 2010 and deployed to Afghanistan for eight months in 2012. He is from a three-generation family of military officers and has been deployed in Kuwait with the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, which is the campaign against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), since last fall.
“I joined the military in 2010 because I believe the US military is a force for good in the world… [like] everyone, I was taken aback when I saw ISIS sweep through Syria and Iraq, seizing city after city, town after town, with their beheadings and crucifixions, laying to waste all in their way. They are an army of butchers. Their savagery is sickening,” wrote Captain Smith in the court papers.
“When President Obama ordered airstrikes in Iraq in August 2014, and in Syria… I was ready for action… we were all cheering every airstrike and every setback for ISIS… I was also noticing that people at home were torn about whether President Obama should be carrying out this war… I began to wonder, ‘Is this the Administration’s war, or is it America’s war?’ …My conscience bothered me,” he added.
Obama administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, have repeatedly asserted that they have the legal authority to conduct the fight against Islamic State. The authority they are referring to was granted by Congress post-September 11, 2001, when it signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizing then-President George W. Bush to wage war against those responsible for the September 11 attacks and the governments which harbored them. The 2002 AUMF authorized the war in Iraq.
The Army Times reported that the Pentagon is operating under the broad permission “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism” against the United States, in its fight against IS.
Critics contend that stretches the 2001 agreement too far – a view shared by Captain Smith who said in court papers that the AUMF was issued against Al-Qaida, and “ISIS is in no way responsible for the September 11 attacks,” and therefore the president has “exceeded his authority.”
Smith argued that by providing support for an illegal war, he is violating his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” noting that the President “had failed to publish an opinion prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel or the White House Counsel to justify the war against ISIS… instead left it to Administration spokespersons to provide ad hoc and ever-shifting legal justifications for a military campaign that is constantly changing its strategic objectives and escalating its use of force.”
Those ad-hoc justifications have seen the campaign against Islamic State grow from airstrikes to deployed trainers to search-and-kill teams – and in late April to authorize 250 troops for ground operations in Syria.
Smith asks that the court declare that “the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq violated the War Powers Resolution.”
A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Why Obama's Campaign to Shield Saudi Arabia From Scrutiny Erodes Human Rights Around the World

The president is aggressively lobbying against 9/11 families seeking to sue the Saudi government.

By Sarah Lazare / AlterNet

April 20, 2016

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/why-obamas-campaign-shield-saudi-arabia-scrutiny-erodes-human-rights-around-world

King Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia bids farewell to President Barack Obama at Erga Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jan. 27, 2015.
Photo Credit: Pete Souza/Public Domain

When President Barack Obama was preparing for his third presidential visit to Saudi Arabia last year, he made it clear that the close U.S. ally’s human rights abuses would not be up for discussion. “Sometimes we have to balance our need to speak to them about human rights issues with immediate concerns that we have in terms of countering terrorism or dealing with regional stability," he told CNN in January 2015 in anticipation of his first face-to-face with then-newly minted King Salman.
During the year that has lapsed between his third and now fourth presidential visit to Riyadh (currently taking place), Obama has done more than simply withhold criticism from the kingdom. He has politically and militarily backed Saudi Arabia’s murderous war on Yemen, which has been waged for over a year with U.S.-manufactured arms. He has stood by as the government carried out a rash of politically motivated executions, including the killing of prominent dissident and protest leader Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr.
Throughout Obama’s presidency, Saudi Arabia has remained a top importer of U.S.-manufactured weapons, including the tanks the government used to invade Bahrain in 2011 and help violently repress its pro-democracy movements. On its own soil, the kingdom has maintained an oppressive system of male legal guardianship, under which women can’t obtain higher education or even a passport without approval from a father, husband or son. It’s an understatement to point out that the president has strayed far from his 2002 call to “make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people.”
“The Obama administration has supported and created the worst human rights conditions in Gulf countries ever,” Ali Al-Ahmed,the director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, told AlterNet.
But now, the special relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is giving rise to bizarre developments in domestic politics, as the president aggressively lobbies to shield the kingdom from legal charges over its potential role in the 9/11 attacks, including by campaigning against bereaved U.S. families.
Suspicions stem from George W. Bush’s decision to seal a 28-page section of the 2002 congressional 9/11 inquiry that dealt with the potential role of Saudi officials. While members of Congress are prohibited from revealing the contents of the section, some have spoken on and off the record about its potential implication of Saudi government officials and associates. Former Senator Bob Graham declared as recently as February, "The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.”
Families who lost loved ones to the attacks have waged a years-long legal battle to sue Saudi Arabia, as well as banks and charities, for their alleged support. But they have been obstructed by laws that limit that ability of U.S. courts to sue some foreign sovereigns.
A proposed Senate bill known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act would overrule these limitations if passed by Congress and the president, clearing the way for families to seek accountability. The legislation “is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil,” wrote Mark Mazzetti in a New York Times cover story published Saturday.
In response to the proposed bill, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir traveled to Washington last month, "telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts,” Mazzetti reports.
While it is not clear if Saudi Arabia will follow through on the threat, the Obama administration is aggressively lobbying against the legislation and is even threatening to veto the bill if it lands on the president’s desk. “Given the long list of concerns I have expressed ... it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it's currently drafted,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday. “It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he argued, adding: “The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.”
Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, told AlterNet that the reason Obama is lobbying against the bill “probably has less to do with protecting Saudi Arabia than fearing there could be reciprocity and worrying that other countries will bring charges, given that the U.S. has violated the Geneva Conventions and laws of war around the world.”
In fact, people impacted by U.S. war and occupation around the world have protested and spoken out against American immunity for war crimes, including in Afghanistan where such protections are included in a long-term, interventionist "security" deal. Whether or not the Obama administration is opposing the bill to protect itself or placate its ally, the campaign aims to restrict the powers of ordinary people to seek redress for state violence.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts to force the release of the 28 pages. When Press Secretary John Kirby was asked Tuesday by an unnamed reporter about the missing 28 pages, he snapped back that “for us to sit here, this many years later, and try to debate it I think is just a fool’s errand.”
These comments come despite the fact that the Saudi government has reportedly come out in support of the release.
Talat Hamdani, a member of the advocacy organization 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, told AlterNet, “Those pages need to be revealed. As a mother who lost my son to the September 11th attacks, I want the perpetrators to be accountable. In order to have justice, we need to have hard facts.”
Noting that she is not speaking on behalf of her organization, Hamdani added that she does support Obama's decision to oppose the Just Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Her position diverges sharply from that of Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the 9/11 attacks. “It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” Kleinberg told Mazzetti.
In fact, U.S. opposition to full scrutiny of the Saudi role in financing terror is relevant not only to U.S. citizens but also to people across the Middle East impacted by violence and displacement. This reality was privately acknowledged by Hillary Clinton in a 2009 cable exposed by WikiLeaks, in which she stated: "Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. Continued senior-level USG engagement is needed to build on initial efforts and encourage the Saudi government to take more steps to stem the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia-based sources to terrorists and extremists worldwide.”
According to Bennis, “There is a lot of uncertainty about whether it’s been the king or crowned prince or other royal family members or government-backed institutions, but it is clear that someone is giving money to ISIS."
The Obama administration will not even release information about the kingdom’s potential role in an attack on U.S. soil, let alone bloodshed in Iraq and Syria, even amid signs that blind support for Saudi Arabia is growing increasingly politically unviable. Earlier this year, grassroots activists, dissidents and human rights campaigners gathered in Washington D.C. to raise concern about the special relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. And a bipartisan team of senators announced last week they are introducing legislation to "set new conditions for U.S. military support to Saudi Arabia."
“I believe the whole world today is starting to recognize the problem of human rights violations in Saudi Arabia,” Mohammed Nimr al-Nimr, the son of the executed Saudi dissident, told AlterNet. But, he added that Obama’s visit shows “agreement and support to all human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.”
Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet.

Obama Arrives In Saudi Arabia To "Reassure" His Close Ally That Nothing Has Changed

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/20/2016 08:42 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-20/obama-arrives-saudi-arabia-reassure-his-close-ally-nothing-has-changed
While Congress is scrambling to sweep the recently introduced Bipartisan bill that would allow US families to sue Saudi Arabia for Sept 11, Barack Obama has just landed in Saudi Arabia to reassure his close ally that all is under control.

President Obama with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef,
center, and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in May 2015
As the WSJ reports, Obama arrived today in the Saudi kingdom for a brief trip "meant to provide reassurances to Gulf allies and to bolster his own foreign-policy legacy."

With just nine months left in office, Mr. Obama is aiming to steady what have become rocky relationships in the region and to tackle issues ranging from the fight against Islamic State to addressing Iranian aggression, along with easing tensions between Tehran and Saudi Arabia. But in Riyadh, the president will find frustrated allies who already have begun to look ahead to the next administration.

Obama plans to spend about 28 hours in the Saudi capital, holding talks with King Salman Wednesday afternoon and attending a Thursday summit hosted by leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council. This trip, perhaps the last to Riyadh during Mr. Obama’s presidency, serves as a bookend for an administration that once sought a “new beginning” for the U.S. and the Islamic world, but now is confronting the prospect of a tense conclusion to this chapter.
Of course, the main reason for the simmering Saudi tensions has been the thawing of US relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia's self-proclaimed biggest regional threat.
Meanwhile, from the NYT, here are some pointers on what Obama should not do during his visit: sell even more weapons to the belligerent kingdom in exchange for goodwill that only lasts as long as the status quo is not threatened.

When President Obama visits Saudi Arabia this week for a meeting with representatives from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, he should avoid doing what he did at Camp David last May, the last time he met with them: promise more arms sales. Since Mr. Obama hosted that meeting, the United States has offered over $33 billion in weaponry to its Persian Gulf allies, with the bulk of it going to Saudi Arabia. The results have been deadly.

The Saudi-American arms deals are a continuation of a booming business that has developed between Washington and Riyadh during the Obama years. In the first six years of the Obama administration, the United States entered into agreements to transfer nearly $50 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia, with tens of billions of dollars of additional offers in the pipeline.

The Pentagon claims that these arms transfers to Saudi Arabia “improve the security of an important partner which has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.” Recent Saudi actions suggest otherwise.

The Obama administration says that it has urged restraint from the Saudis, but that doesn’t appear to have worked. Human Rights Watch has reported that two Saudi strikes on a market in the Yemeni village of Mastaba in mid-March killed at least 97 civilians, including 25 children. This was just one in a series of Saudi strikes on marketplaces, hospitals and other civilian targets, attacks that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said may constitute war crimes.

Alas, Obama is in a bind: threaten to expose Saudi involvement in Sept 11, or dare to suggest that the US military-industrial supply chain into Saudi Arabia is slowing, and the response is already clear: a threat to dump hundreds of billions in US securities. Which is why Obama has zero leverage and will fold to any Saudi demand presented during his meetings today.

Obama Succumbs To Saudi Pressure, Will Veto Sept 11 Lawsuit Bill

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/19/2016 09:42 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-19/obama-succumbs-saudi-pressure-threatens-veto-sept-11-lawsuit-bill
Following Saudi threats to destabilize the financial system if the US were to enact a Bill that would allow an investigation into Saudi Arabia's support of September 11 terrorist attacks, many were watching closely how Obama would react. The president made it clear last night when as CNN reports, the White House threatened to veto the bipartisan bill to let families victimized by the 9/11 terrorist attacks sue Saudi Arabia while a GOP senator privately sought to block the measure.
The White House and State Department are bluntly warning lawmakers not to proceed with the legislation due to "fears" it could have dramatic ramifications for the United States and citizens living abroad to retaliatory lawsuits.
The President lands in Riyadh Wednesday for talks with Saudi Arabia over ISIS and Iran at a time of strained relations between the countries, making the bill's timing that much more sensitive.
The move comes as presidential candidates from both parties are seizing on the legislation to score points with New York voters ahead of Tuesday's critical primary there.
As reported over the weekend, one of the biggest supporters of the bill is none other than New York democrat Chuck Schumer, the likely next Senate Democratic leader, who has found himself pitted squarely against the Obama administration.
As CNN adds, the stepped-up lobbying against the legislation comes as it faces fresh roadblocks on Capitol Hill, with party leaders learning that a GOP senator is objecting to taking up the bill, according to a source familiar with the legislation. The senator's identity has not yet been revealed publicly.
Proponents of the measure, for their part, are intensifying their pressure campaign.
"If Saudi Arabia participated in terrorism, of course they should be able to be sued," Schumer said Monday. "This bill would allow a suit to go forward and victims of terrorism to go to court to determine if the Saudi government participated in terrorist acts. If the Saudis did, they should pay a price."
Obama, however, disagrees for whatever reasons.
As we reported yesterday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest fired back, warning that it would jeopardize international sovereignty and put the U.S. at "significant risk" if other countries adopted a similar law. "It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the President would sign it," Earnest said.
And that's the problem because to most Americans it is incomprehensible why Obama would roadblock something that is so critical to getting to the bottom of the worst terrorist attack on US soil.
As a reminder, the proposed Bipartisan Bill, which Schumer and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas are pushing, would prevent Saudi Arabia and other countries alleged to have terrorist ties from invoking their sovereign immunity in federal court.
Saudi Arabia has long denied any role in the 9/11 attacks, but victims' families have repeatedly sought to bring the matter to court, only to be rebuffed after the country has invoked legal immunity allowed under current law. However, as the White House itself admitted yesterday, it was the Saudis who were the source of Al Qaeda's seed funding.
"It makes minor adjustments to our laws that would clarify the ability of Americans attacked on U.S. soil to get justice from those who have sponsored that terrorist attack," Cornyn said of the bill, which is entitled the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

Not Just Obama
It's not just Obama who is holding back the Bill: a GOP senator is privately holding up the bill, an obstacle that would require Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to file time-consuming procedural motions to move past. He would need 60 votes to overcome the objection, but it is uncertain whether he will move on the measure before his colleague's issues are ironed out. Not surprisingly, the objector has yet to step up: "no senator has yet claimed responsibility for privately voicing the objection."

Under the rules of the Senate, any one senator can privately inform his or her party leadership of plans to place a "hold" to block legislation. His or her name would not become public unless a senator took to the Senate floor and tried to advance the bill, forcing the opponent to object. That scenario has not yet occurred as negotiations to find a way forward continue behind the scenes. Cornyn said that while several senators originally had placed holds on the measure, they had all relented save one.

Cornyn added that "part of the concern is that somehow this is a thumb in the eye to Saudi Arabia, a valuable ally," he said. So because it is a valuable ally its support of terrorism on US soil should be ignored.
* * *
While Saudi Arabia has not been directly and officially implicated in the 9/11 attacks - yet - 15 of the 19 hijackers were of Saudi descent. Moreover, there has long been suspicion about ties between the royal family of Saudi Arabia to al Qaeda, speculation that has only intensified as 28 pages of a congressional investigation into the 9/11 attacks remains classified. As pressure grows on Congress to let 9/11 victims' families pursue their claims against Saudi Arabia in federal court, Saudi officials are quickly pushing back.
Following the Saudi threat to dump its US denominated assets, including billions in US Treasurys, Cornyn was quick to dismiss the threat: "It's seems overly defensive to me and I doubt they can do it," he said in response. "I don't think we should let foreign countries dictate the domestic policy of the United States so, no, it doesn't bother me at all."

Presidential Candidates Get On The Action
Presidential candidates were also unmoved. Ahead of the New York primary, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voiced muted support to align themselves with the Cornyn-Schumer bill. Or rather Bernie did: Hillary appears to be on the fence, and while she said in a Sunday appearance on ABC that she had to study the bill and would not take a position, a spokesman later said she backs the bill.
Sanders, in a statement Sunday night, announced that he supports the bill and called on the Obama administration to declassify the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that could implicate Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, Trump evinced no concern about Saudi Arabia's threat to sell off U.S. assets. "Let 'em sell 'em," Trump said. "No big deal."
Trump added: "Hey, look, we protect Saudi Arabia. We protect them for peanuts. If we weren't protecting them, they wouldn't be there for a week."
However, for now just one person's opinion matters: the one shown on the left.

 
*So... behind this medallion is my Swiss account number???*

Obama: We Can’t Let Truth Come Out About Saudi Involvement In 9/11, Or Else America’s Terrorism Will Be Revealed

Posted on April 18, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog

Obama told CBS News today that we can’t allow bipartisan legislation subjecting the Saudis to potential liability for terrorism … or else other countries could retaliate against the US (starting at 0:40):

See video HERE:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/obama-cant-let-truth-come-saudi-involvement-911-else-americas-terrorism-will-revealed.html

Similarly, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said today:

“The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake,” Earnest told reporters Monday. “It could put the United States, and our taxpayers, and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk, if other countries were to adopt a similar law.”

As Cal Thomas points out at the Washington Times:

The intent of the Senate bill is to clarify the immunity normally given to foreign governments. It says such immunity should not apply when nations are found culpable of committing terrorist attacks that kill Americans on U.S. soil.

Why would the U.S. be worried about retaliation by other countries … being held accountable for terrorism?
Well, the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom – noted:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

And – while Saudi Arabia is certainly a huge sponsor of terrorism worldwide – experts from the right and the left agree that the U.S. is actually the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism. And see this.

Postscript:  Of course, it would be nice if everyone – including both the Saudis and Americans – moved past this and stopped committing terror.
But it doesn’t seem like either country is willing to commit to that …

Fidel Castro Slams "Illustrious Visitor" Obama's "Honeyed Words", Cuba "Needs No Gifts From The Empire"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/28/2016 09:02 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/fidel-castro-slams-illustrious-visitor-obamas-honeyed-words-cuba-needs-no-gifts-empi
Having spent a couple of days glad-handing (and watching baseball) with Raul Castro in Cuba, 89-year-old Fidel Castro has come out swinging against "the empire" with a bristling 1500-word open letter recounting the history of US aggression against Cuba suggesting Obama "reflects and doesn't try to develop theories about Cuban politics." Despite all of The White House's claims of progress, Castro rages "we don't need the empire to give us any presents."
As AP reports, the 1,500-word letter in state media Monday is Castro’s first response to Obama’s three-day visit last week, in which the American president said he had come to bury the two countries’ history of Cold War hostility. Obama did not meet with Fidel Castro but met several times with his brother Raul Castro, the current president.
Fidel Castro, 89, writes about Cuba’s history, starting with Spanish colonialism up to the Bays of Pigs invasion.
Full letter from Fidel Castro:

"We are able to produce food and material wealth (...). We do not need the empire regale us anything," said the leader.

The kings of Spain brought the conquerors and owners, whose fingerprints were on the circular bundles of land assigned to the prospectors in the sands of rivers, abusive and shameful form of exploitation whose traces can be seen from the air many parts of the country.

Tourism today largely consists of showing delight landscapes and savor the food delicacies of our seas, and always to be shared with the private capital of large foreign corporations, whose profits if they do not reach the billions of dollars per capita are not worthy of some attention.

Since I was forced to broach the subject, I must add, especially for young people, that few people realize the importance of such a condition in this unique moment in human history. I will not say that time has been lost, but do not hesitate to say that we are not sufficiently informed, neither you nor we, knowledge and consciences we should have to face the realities that challenge us . The first thing to consider is that our lives are a historical split second, you have to also share with the vital needs of all human beings. One feature of this is the tendency to the overvaluation of their role, which contrasts with the other hand the extraordinary number of people who embody the highest dreams.

No one, however, is good or bad by itself. None of us is designed for the role it should take in the revolutionary society. In part, the Cubans had the privilege of having the example of José Martí. I wonder even if they had to fall or not in Dos Rios, saying "it is time for me", and charged the Spanish forces entrenched in a solid line of fire. I did not want to return to the United States and no one who did return. Someone plucked a few leaves from his diary. Who bore the perfidious fault, that was certainly the work of some unscrupulous schemer? differences between the bosses are known but never indiscipline. "Whoever attempts to conquer Cuba will only gather the dust of her soil soaked in blood, if not perish in the fight" said the glorious black leader Antonio Maceo. It is also recognized in Maximo Gomez, the most disciplined and discreet military chief of our history.

Looked at from another angle, how not to admire the indignation of Bonifacio Byrne when, from the distant boat that brought him back to Cuba, at the sight of another flag next to Lone Star, said: "My flag is one that has mercenary ever been ... "to add immediately one of the most beautiful phrases I never heard:" If undone in small pieces becomes my flag someday ... our dead raising his arms to defend know yet ...! ". Nor do I forget the words of Camilo Cienfuegos lit that night, when several dozen meters bazookas and machine guns of American origin, in counter hands, pointed to the terrace where we were standing. Obama was born in August 1961, as he himself said. More than half a century would pass from that time.

Let's see how today however think our illustrious visitor: "I came here to leave behind the last vestiges of the Cold War in the Americas. I came here extending the hand of friendship to the Cuban people. "

Immediately a flood of concepts, entirely new to most of us: "They live in a new world colonized by Europeans." US President continued. "Cuba, like the United States, was founded by slaves brought from Africa; like the United States, the Cuban people have inheritance in slaves and slaveholders. "

Native populations do not exist at all in the minds of Obama. Nor does it say that racial discrimination was swept away by the Revolution; that retirement and salary of all Cubans were enacted by this before Mr. Barack Obama fulfilled 10 years. The odious and racist bourgeois habit of hiring thugs to black citizens were expelled from recreation centers was swept by the Cuban Revolution. This would be remembered for the battle fought in Angola against apartheid, ending the presence of nuclear weapons in a continent of more than one billion people. That was not the goal of our solidarity, but to help the people of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and other fascist colonial rule of Portugal.

In 1961, just a year and three months after the triumph of the Revolution, a mercenary force with cannons and armored infantry, equipped with aircraft, was trained and accompanied by warships and aircraft carriers in the US, raiding our country. Nothing can justify this premeditated attack that cost our country hundreds of killed and wounded. Pro-Yankee Brigade assault, nowhere has there could have evacuated a single mercenary. Yanks warplanes were presented to the United Nations as rebels Cuban teams.

It is well known military experience and power of that country. In Africa also they believed that revolutionary Cuba would easily put out of action. The attack southern Angola by the racist South Africa motorized brigades leads to the vicinity of Luanda, the capital of this country. Hence a struggle that lasted not less than 15 years starts. I speak not even this, unless he had the elemental duty to respond to Obama's speech at the Gran Teatro de La Habana Alicia Alonso.

Nor I try to give details, only to emphasize that there honorably page of the struggle for human liberation was written. In a way I wanted Obama's behavior was correct. His humble origins and his natural intelligence were evident. Mandela was imprisoned for life and had become a giant in the struggle for human dignity. One day I got my hands on a copy of the book in that part of the life of Mandela and oh, surprise !: was prefaced by Barack Obama is told. I flipped through quickly. It was amazing the size of the lowercase letter stating Mandela data. Worth having known men like that.

On the episode of South Africa I must point out another experience. I was really interested in learning more about how the South Africans had acquired nuclear weapons. Only had very precise that did not exceed 10 or 12 bombs information. A reliable source would be the professor and researcher Piero Gleijeses, who had drafted the text "Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington and Africa 1959-1976"; an excellent job. I knew he was the safest source of what happened and so I communicated; I replied that he had not spoken about the matter, because the text had answered the questions of teammate Jorge Risquet, who had been ambassador in Angola or Cuban partner, close friend of his. I located Risquet; and other important occupations was finishing a course which was missing several weeks. That task coincided with a fairly recent trip to our country Piero; He had warned that Risquet this was some years and his health was not optimal. A few days later it happened what I feared. Risquet worsened and he died. Piero came when there was nothing to do except promises, but I had already made about what was related to that weapon and help that racist South Africa had received from Reagan and Israel.

I do not know that now Obama have to say about this story. I do not know what or did not know, although it is very doubtful that I knew absolutely nothing. My modest suggestion is to reflect and do not try now to develop theories about Cuban politics.

There is an important issue: Obama delivered a speech in which he used to express the most honeyed words: "It's high time to forget the past, let the past, look to the future, let's look together, a future of hope. And it will not be easy, there will be challenges, and these will give it time; but my stay here gives me more hope for what we can do together as friends, as family, as neighbors, together. "

It is assumed that each of us risked a heart attack upon hearing these words of the President of the United States. After a merciless blockade that has lasted almost 60 years, and those who have died in the mercenary attacks on ships and Cuban ports, an airliner full of passengers detonated in midair, mercenary invasions, multiple acts of violence and strength?

No illusion that the people of this noble and selfless country give up the glory and rights is made, and spiritual wealth he has earned with the development of education, science and culture.

I also warn that we are able to produce food and material wealth we need the effort and intelligence of our people. We do not need the empire regale us nothing. Our efforts will be legal and peaceful, because it is our commitment to peace and brotherhood of all human beings living on this planet.

So, like Iran, another foe-turning-effort appears to be falling by the way-side.