I can’t leave a comment on the article, b/c I don’t have a Reuters acct. Did anyone leave a comment noting this discrepancy?

Posted by: Jessica S | Sep 4 2013 14:47 utc | 4

That’s right up there with
“US Claims ‘Al-Qaeda Number Two’ Killed “
some of those #2’s were even killed 3 or 4 times
For example in Dec. 2012 it was reported Said al-Shihri, supposedly an “al Qaeda number two”, was killed.
It was the third time the US reported they’d killed him
And another Three-fer was Abu Yahya al-Libi, which the US claimed to have killed 2 times before they yet again claimed to have killed him in June 2012.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 14:56 utc | 6

Actually Yonet resurrected him after three days
He is under a US travel ban though, Turkey should not have let him in.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 14:59 utc | 8

How funny would it have been if it had actually been three days later?

Posted by: Jessica S | Sep 4 2013 15:11 utc | 10

in fact Syrian tv resurrected him only HOURS after his announced death ^^
http://www.infosyrie.fr/en-bref/desinformation-suite-lheureuse-resurrection-du-general-habib/

Posted by: zingaro | Sep 4 2013 15:38 utc | 12

So he didn’t die (8 & 12 give links).
b. did you miss this one or was there a later report
That he had indeed died?

Posted by: Khalid Shah | Sep 4 2013 15:44 utc | 14

14) well according to rebels he first died and then defected …
Actually it is possible he neither died nor defected

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 16:00 utc | 16

The point is most people will accept it as truth without any question ….
most readers only read the title of news and judge according of it …
so some news agencies doing their job …fooling peoples …

Posted by: R.P | Sep 4 2013 16:07 utc | 18

I was in a situation over the Labor Day weekend where I had to watch cable news for many hours. Appalling though it was — MSNBC I believe is the worst with its incessant pleas to “Save the children!” — one bright spot was Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) who I saw a couple of times on CNN and who USA Today reports is whipping opposition in the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
If the conventional wisdom is right and Congressional politics are ruled by the short-term consideration of avoiding a primary challenge, then enough Representatives from conservative and progressive districts might exist to block the AUMF in the House.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 4 2013 16:15 utc | 20

@20 They are working on the language . The AUMF is still very open-ended according to this…
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/the-senate-draft-aumf-for-syria-is-narrower-than-the-administrations-draft/

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 16:21 utc | 22

The link by ‘somebody’ #14 goes to a REUTERS report that says that Syrian state television today quoted an official source: “There is no truth to what the media has reported on the travel of former defense minister Ali Habib Mahmoud outside of Syria and he is still in his home.” That is, he’s still alive. It was foolish of ‘b’ to rely upon YnetNews. But it looks like I’ve lost my bet that Khaled Yacoub Oweis wouldn’t have been so ill-informed as to give credence to the defection rumour.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 4 2013 16:47 utc | 24

In his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which is happening right now, John Kerry just referenced the defection of General Ali Habib “who is in Turkey right now.”

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 4 2013 16:51 utc | 26

This is getting serious. Russia is not backing down. Lets see who blinks first.

Posted by: hilmi hakim | Sep 4 2013 17:17 utc | 28

27) Yep, that was an attack in April in Aleppo, the Russians did very thorough research on that incidence. As I understand that was the initial reason US inspectors were in Damascus when very conveniently the latest incidence happened.
The US “evidence” obviously has holes for whatever reason Kerry and Obama are pushing it. I do not see how they can win the argument on “Red Lines” against
U.S. not ‘Al Qaeda’s air force
But yes, Russia/Syria need to come up with more than analysis of weapons where you basically have to trust what they are saying.
Best would be coming up with the parents of those children in the morgue, giving names and stories to the bodies. They can’t be left anonymous.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 17:30 utc | 30

31) I agree. There is an election in 2014.
I don’t know how international relations can ever be repaired though.
Putin says Kerry is lying.
Ever since Chrustchev hammered a shoe on the table, Russian leaders have not come across in such an undiplomatic way.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 17:45 utc | 32

If Putin does not deter the impending aggression, history will know him as Vlad the Appeaser. For deterrence to work, it must be credible and threatening before the attack; what ever happens after the aggression is beyond the even horizon and irrelevant; you have already lost!
The Russian fleet in the Mediterranean was sent to sink any NATO ship that launches and illegal attack on Syria. For over half a year this deterrence has worked. The US is now trying to bypass the threat with two tactics:
1) Launching cruise missiles from central Mediterranean, beyond the reach of Russian offensive capacity.
2) Bullshit talk about a “limited” strike: “If Assad can just stand this punishment, all will be back to normal.”
For Russian deterrence to have further effect, the Russian Air Force would have to send Tupolev Tu-95 bombers with long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles on 24 patrol over eastern and central Mediterranean.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Sep 4 2013 17:53 utc | 34

somebody
Thats so sick I have no words for it. ‘pay us and we do the murder’
US lies and warmongering will cause me a depression.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 4 2013 18:06 utc | 36

AIPAC day in the House. Eliot Engel and Ros-Lehtniten(sp?) “IRAN IRAN IRAN ISRAEL IRAN”. They were first up to bat, and Kerry used their statements in his own opening, which followed theirs. A coincidence, I’m sure. Welp. No more quibbling about the 800lb gorilla. It’s taking a dump right in our mouths.

Posted by: L Bean | Sep 4 2013 18:13 utc | 38

@somebody /33
Thank you for the Link.Very intereresting.

Posted by: some1 | Sep 4 2013 18:29 utc | 40

I thought might be of interest to Don.

Posted by: Dan | Sep 4 2013 18:59 utc | 42

The Independent is reporting Gen Habib was smuggled out of Syria with the help of a Western country. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-general-deserts-damascus-and-flees-to-turkey-8798905.html

Posted by: TikTok | Sep 4 2013 19:46 utc | 44

44) “if confirmed” :-))
On the Saudi Lobby – WSJ

Meanwhile, an influential protégé, current Saudi Ambassador to Washington Adel al-Jubeir, is leading a parallel campaign to coax Congress and a reluctant Obama administration to expand the U.S. role in Syria.
The conflict there has become a proxy war for Middle East factions, and Saudi Arabia’s efforts in Syria are just one sign of its broader effort to expand its regional influence. The Saudis also have been outspoken supporters of the Egyptian military in its drive to squelch the Muslim Brotherhood, backing that up with big chunks of cash.
The Saudi lobbying is part of the calculus as the U.S. weighs its options in the wake of a suspected chemical attack last week. Damascus suburbs allegedly targeted are at the heart of what the Saudis now call their “southern strategy” for strengthening rebels in towns east and south of the capital.
As part of that, intelligence agents from Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Jordan and other allied states are working at a secret joint operations center in Jordan to train and arm handpicked Syrian rebels, according to current and former U.S. and Middle Eastern officials.
The CIA has put unspecified limits on its arming efforts. But the agency has been helping train rebels to better fight. Earlier this year it also began making salary payments to members of the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, U.S. and Arab officials said. There are now more CIA personnel at the Jordan base than Saudi personnel, according to Arab diplomats.
…
Not everyone in the Obama administration is comfortable with the new U.S. partnership with the Saudis on Syria. Some officials said they fear it carries the same risk of spinning out of control as an earlier project in which Prince Bandar was involved—the 1980s CIA program of secretly financing the Contras in Nicaragua against a leftist government. The covert program led to criminal convictions for U.S. operatives and international rebukes.
“This has the potential to go badly,” one former official said, citing the risk weapons will end up in the hands of violent anti-Western Islamists.
Many top U.S. intelligence analysts also think the Syrian rebels are hopelessly outgunned by Assad allies Iran and Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group, according to congressional officials and diplomats.
Prince Bandar and Mr. Jubeir have told the U.S. they don’t necessarily expect a victory by the Syrian rebels anytime soon, but they want to gradually tilt the battlefield in their favor, according to American officials who have met with them.
The Saudi plan is to steadily strengthen carefully selected groups of rebel fighters not in the radical Islamist camp, with the goal of someday seeing them in control in Damascus. Difficult as such an effort is proving to be, the Saudi thinking goes, not trying would risk a future in which Syria was dominated either by extremist Muslims from among the rebels or by Iran, Riyadh’s arch rival in the quest for regional dominance.
In Jordan, officials said they couldn’t yet tell whether the joint operation has reaped success in sifting moderate Syrian rebels from the extremists. Some said they couldn’t rule out the possibility some Saudi funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar. U.S. officials said they couldn’t rule out that mistakes would be made.
…
That winter, the Saudis also started trying to convince Western governments that Mr. Assad had crossed what President Barack Obama a year ago called a “red line”: the use of chemical weapons. Arab diplomats say Saudi agents flew an injured Syrian to Britain, where tests showed sarin gas exposure. Prince Bandar’s spy service, which concluded in February that Mr. Assad was using chemical weapons, relayed evidence to the U.S., which reached a similar conclusion four months later. The Assad regime denies using such weapons.
After Mr. Petraeus’s November resignation over an affair, his job was handled by his deputy, Michael Morell, who privately voiced skepticism the agency could make sure any arms supplied by the U.S. wouldn’t end up with hard-line Islamists, said congressional officials.
Ultimately, the new CIA chief was John Brennan, whose closest Saudi confidant when he was White House counterterrorism adviser was also focused on the risk of inadvertently strengthening al Qaeda. Since moving to the CIA, Mr. Brennan has been in periodic contact by phone with Prince Bandar, officials said.
Despite its caution, the CIA expanded its role at the base in Jordan early this year. At that point, though, the U.S. still wasn’t sending weapons.
In early April, said U.S. officials, the Saudi king sent a strongly worded message to Mr. Obama: America’s credibility was on the line if it let Mr. Assad and Iran prevail. The king warned of dire consequences of abdicating U.S. leadership and creating a vacuum, said U.S. officials briefed on the message.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, who was the first Saudi official to publicly back arming the rebels, followed with a similar message during a meeting with Mr. Obama later that month, the officials said.
By late spring, U.S. intelligence agencies saw worrisome signs that Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, in response to the influx of Saudi arms, were ramping up support to Mr. Assad. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee backed arming the rebels, and Mr. Jubeir and Prince Bandar turned their attention to skeptics on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
They arranged a trip for committee leaders to Riyadh, where Prince Bandar laid out the Saudi strategy. It was a reunion of sorts, officials said, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) warmly scolding Prince Bandar about his smoking.
Mr. Obama in June authorized the CIA to provide arms at the Jordanian base, in limited quantity and firepower, on the understanding the U.S. could reverse course if there weren’t sufficient controls on who got them, congressional officials said.
Prince Bandar flew to Paris soon after for talks with French officials. In July he was in Moscow to meet with one of Mr. Assad’s prime supporters, President Vladimir Putin.
A generation ago, Prince Bandar, in a role foreshadowing his current one on behalf of Syrian opposition, helped the CIA arm the Afghan rebels who were resisting occupation by Soviet troops.
Arab diplomats said that in meeting with Russian officials this summer, the prince delivered the same message he gave the Soviets 25 years ago: that the kingdom had plenty of money and was committed to using it to prevail.
This past weekend, as the White House weighed possible military attacks against Mr. Assad, Saudi Arabia and its allies pressed Mr. Obama to take forceful action in response to the chemical-weapons reports, according to a U.S. official. The Arab message, according to another official, was: “You can’t as president draw a line and then not respect it.”

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 20:06 utc | 46

In light of the Senate Committee passage a nice ranked listing of who gets the most Pro-Israel campaign cash.
Note: Menendez, Durbin, McCain (yes votes) high up on list which covers years 2007-2012 for Senators, 2011-12 for Reps.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 20:33 utc | 48

claudio
3) I think there are many reasons for which AIPAC may support a military aggression: but they largely coincide with Us interests I outlined above; I think it’s quite naive to think that the Us are being pushed by Israel in a war it doesn’t want;

I think you are the naive one, “coinincides” yeah right, thats what the lobby and Israel wants you to believe. You have alot to explain why US would want to kill the leader of a stable, secular-state which hasnt harmed US in any way.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 4 2013 20:38 utc | 50

47) The situation on the ground. Assad is winning so something has to be done. They thought first (and that is what they said) they could just tip the balance a bit by air strikes and everything would be ok. Iran, Hezbollah, Russia made clear that there would be retaliation. Retaliation means there is no control of the outcome. As obviously when you do a “punishment strike” for “deterrence”, you have achieved nothing when you get hit yourself. Escalation is potentially endless.
I agree with this Al Akhbar analysis – The New America – Between Modesty and Madness

What is at stake is much more than what happens in the Middle East. America’s key political, security, economic, and military institutions are wondering just how much influence their country still wields in the world today.
Congress may vote for or against a military strike on Syria, but there is no doubt that Washington is living through one of the most difficult moments in its recent history.
Congress’ decision has little to do with what the secretaries of state and defense John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have to offer on the matter – the House and Senate must also be prepared to accept the consequences of a military adventure that could spark a regional war. And if they refuse to support an attack, then they must lay out a new strategy for the US’ role in the world.
Both Obama and Congress know well that the time for threats and bluster has expired, and it’s time to make a decision and take action. Mediators did their best to convince Syria’s allies – Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah – not to respond to what they promised would be symbolic strikes that would avoid exacting any serious damage to the regime’s forces.
The response came back from Moscow, on behalf of the rest, saying that any strike, rocket, or even bullet fired at Syria will mean open war that could engulf the region as a whole, including America’s prized allies like Israel and the Gulf Arab countries.

McCain has already enlarged the goal to “changing the situation on the ground”.
It will not be a repeat of the Iraq war, it will be worse. The US can decide to stay out – now – or to spend the next 10 to 20 years on war in the region.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 20:57 utc | 52

@47
Here’s another AIPAC link to a page entitled “Protect America’s National Security: Authorize Use of Force in Syria”.
Gee, that sure seems a bit ambiguous to me!!
Here are the 3 “Key Points” listed on this page – maybe they sound familiar to you:
1. American Credibility.
Failure to grant the President authority would be interpreted as a sign of American weakness, and cast doubt about whether America will act to carry out its commitments in the Middle East – including the President’s and Congress’s pledge to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
2. America’s National Security.
American national security interests, dangers posed to Israel and other allies in the region, and the historic international consensus against the use of chemical weapons all point toward a necessary response.
3. Violating International Accords and American Values.
The blatant use of chemical weapons against a civilian population goes against American values. More than 1,400 people including 400 children were killed in an horrific chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb. We must deter Syria from using these weapons again.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 21:00 utc | 54

@53 Did I say 8 to 8? Maybe I mean 9 to 8 (minus McCain). 8 to 8 minus McCain and Flakey.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 21:04 utc | 56

@51 It’s not a war. It’s a ‘limited military mission’. Not that difficult to sell.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 21:11 utc | 58

I mean #57 darnit.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 21:13 utc | 60

I think they have their eye on the next election. Times are changing. How many want to back McCain?

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 21:22 utc | 62

@57 Bullsh*^

Posted by: crone | Sep 4 2013 21:24 utc | 64

63) It could be that Americans don’t care. When they begin to care they end the war. It could be that this time in Syria they care when it starts.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 21:41 utc | 66

Obama now claims that it wasnt he who put the redline up, he blames the “World” for it!?
Sorry Obama but you are a warmonger you cant deny it.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/04/201163/obama-i-didnt-draw-the-red-line.html#.UiepuSRvmUk

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 4 2013 21:48 utc | 68

@65
I just love this hasbara line of attack (the “What about the [fill in the blank] line of reasoning vis a vis Israel”) – can I ask what number it is?
So – to recap – you stated that AIPAC was forced out into the open and that representatives couldn’t be expected to “interpret” AIPAC’s wishes.
I countered saying that besides talking to some of the hundreds if not thousands of AIPAC/pro-Israel lobbyists DC is crawling with “confused” jellyfish could take a gander at AIPAC’s website where documents concerning AIPAC’s positions concerning Syria have appeared regularly since at least 2008.
I also mentioned that to a person the 535 voted just last year for a resolution against Iran & Syria that was sponsored by pro-Israeli lobbyists. Gee, that might be a clue as to what AIPAC’s wishes were, huh?.
Then you countered saying that I had to take into account the entire history of the Cold War, the MIC and the rise of AIPAC throughout history etc etc to get a better overview of the situation when I really was just taking issue with your RIDICULOUS and CONSPICUOUS attempt to whitewash Israel’s involvement in the murder of more innocent human beings.
Now, surely, there may be multiple reasons for this Syria war but only a hasbarist would even ATTEMPT to lay such an absurdity down like “the 535 couldn’t ‘interpret’ AIPAC’s wishes” amidst a seeming host of other valid reasons.
Too clever by half.
Throughout this entire Syria debate – but especially as it’s coming down to a vote – hasbarists have been desperately trying to minimize Israel’s footprint in this whole affair when any half-awake person can see that Syria is simply the next step in the neo-con/Zionist plans written out decades ago.
Instead of ME having to go bone up on history, sir, I would rather suggest that for you to better understand what’s been happening since the late 60s in America you should read this article The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 22:13 utc | 70

58) General Dempsey said war. From August 21,

I know that the decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war. As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that the use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. We must also understand risk-not just to our forces, but to our other global responsibilities. This is especially critical as we lose readiness due to budget cuts and fiscal uncertainty. Some options may not be feasible in time or cost without compromising our security elsewhere. Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid. We should also act in accordance with the law, and to the extent possible, in concert with our allies and partners to share the burden and solidify the outcome.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 22:24 utc | 72

@JSorrentine and @b
Your continuous labeling as “hasbarism” anyone that disagrees with you should get you banned from MoA; I could accuse you of being a Cia stooge working to hide your masters’ nasty operations behind Israel; it would take us nowhere
anyways:
1) your recap of our “debate” is ridiculous, won’t bother contradict it; you are just trying to turn an exchange of opinions in a brawl, without answering my only objection: you think AIPAC is the only force at play regarding Us wars in the ME?
2) you contradict yourself:

Throughout this entire Syria debate – but especially as it’s coming down to a vote – hasbarists have been desperately trying to minimize Israel’s footprint in this whole affair

then you say their intentions are obvious to everyone;
instead I maintain (an opinion, I could be wrong) that “the 535 couldn’t ‘interpret’ AIPAC’s wishes” is quite reasonable; representatives don’t read newspapers nor blogs; they can’t even distinguish, after years of wars, shiites and sunnies; they probably can’t show Syria on a map; when they go to their lobbyists for money, they show letters by AIPAC and their vote records – and that’s all that AIPAC is interested in
in fact, AIPAC started a propaganda campaign for a war resolution against Syria only after Obama said it would ask for a vote
I didn’t counter any of your single assertions, only your general picture where Us Congress is supposed to vote as AIPAC says simply because it appears to be the only force on the political scene; and I said it’s quite naive
If that makes me a hasbara, saying so makes you a fool or a provocateur

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 22:33 utc | 74

As Congressman Moran, I believe from West Virginia, said before the Iraq War, the Jewish Lobby was not the entire cause of the potential war, but it was strong enough to stop it should it wish.

Posted by: amspirnational | Sep 4 2013 22:41 utc | 76

No thanks claudio
I just wanted to point out that I think the AIPAC thing has been done to death at this stage, that’s all
I’ve pretty much said all I want to say about AIPAC already
continue on with your discussion and don’t mind me, I’ll just do my own thing, thanks anyway.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 22:46 utc | 78

hmm, just told you it’s not (only) about AIPAC; so you think than any discussion of the Syrian crisis outside of AIPAC’s angle is useless? well, then you seem to totally agree with JSorrentine, no need to join in

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 22:53 utc | 80

@ 57 ‘somebody’ said : “Nobody can push 300 million people into a war they do not want. If the US goes to war they want that war.”
Don’t forget that there are millions of Americans who are being misinformed, who want the war on the basis of false premises, and wouldn’t want it if they knew the whole truth. These people are in effect being “pushed into a war they do not want”, pushed by other people who want the war for other reasons.
On the whole, though, I agree with the above statement by ‘somebody’. If the US goes to war you must blame the spirit of the US nation and people as a whole. Do not blame their elected representatives and, especially, do not blame lobbyists.
The American nationals on this board like to think that Americans aren’t shitheads, it’s only their elected representatives who are the shitheads. In many aspects or domains in life, it’s true that Americans are perfectly fine and sensible. But in the domain of foreign affairs, the Americans are blinkered by deep prejudice, and they are conceited shitheads, and their military power makes them dangerous and evil — I’m talking about the American people as a whole. For the Syria affair, the good people of Syria may end up getting saved from American bombing by the fact that the Americans happen to not like the Islamist opposition to Assad. But if the Syrians are spared from US bombing, it should in no way be taken to imply that the Americans aren’t shitheads in general, in the foreign affairs domain. In a few years time there’ll be another country where It’s not a war. It’s a ‘limited military mission’. Not that difficult to sell to the shitheads.
(Parenthetically, there are a lot of other peoples on the planet who are just as bad and could be worse if they had the military power the US has.).
I won’t give you a thesis on the meaning of the word shithead.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 4 2013 22:56 utc | 82

and I just told you “no thanks” claudio.
so once again, Thanks for the original offer, but “no thanks”.
I’ll leave you guys to it. Have fun

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 23:05 utc | 84

Except to say “Thanks” also to somebody @33
That was a very interesting article

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 23:13 utc | 86

“but please don’t try to paint a picture where the only actors are Zionists and 535 jellyfish”
I totally agree with that.
I remember a haarez article (the link was actually on MoA)suggesting,// the ” community ” should keep a low profile to avoid a too obvious involvement because that could bring Israel and ipac the blame for warmongering and too much influence,which could backfire .//
IMO the ziocons want the war but not all the costs ( they would pay with the money of others [KSA],risk some military gear of others [only if Russia stays out] but no blame no political capital at all ) that fits to the ziocon state of mind and storyline,not to forget all the procedure has to look like Israel accidentally profited somehow in this violent neighbourhood and was wise enough to stay out of trouble preemptive strikes not included .I guess this is hard work and they seem to fail at the storyline-propaganda- front already but it is too late to stop.
For Obama it is still not too late but I am not so optimistic about the “jellyfish”.

Posted by: Some1 | Sep 4 2013 23:19 utc | 88

claudio
You’ve lost this battle and are resorting to the worst of “unmentionable people” tactics among them including:
1) tattling to the site owner and trying to get me banned – one of the oldest and cheapest tactics.
2) lying about what I said
3) lying about what you said
4) avoiding my points
5) changing the nature of the debate
But beyond all that, I’ll just destroy your entire argument in a few sentences:
So, using YOUR points, let’s assume that NO ONE in Congress knows ANYTHING about the ME.
Then – here it comes, claudio, are you ready for it? – then why do they ALWAYS vote with ISRAELI interests if AIPAC is not dominant?
KABLAM!!!! KABOOM!!!
I mean, if they don’t know anything and AIPAC DOESN’T affect Congress shouldn’t the votes of the 535 concerning the Middle East be scattershot and random?
Sometimes FOR Israel and sometimes AGAINST?
Why come they vote to support Israel’s side of things EVERY single time issues concerning the ME arise?
I mean, even to the detriment of American security and safety, they vote with Israel and have FOR DECADES.
So, with this in mind, would you like to address this point or are you going to tattle some more?

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 23:28 utc | 90

claudio, I think there’s little productive to be had from continuing this discussion over whether or not I should or should not attempt to meet whatever stringent arbitrary ground-rules you have decided to set, regarding any comments I make.
thanks anyway.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 23:33 utc | 92

Adding:
And don’t even start to try and tell me that the 535 DON’T know how to make destined legislative outcomes look like the vote was close.
Oops, sorry, kids that darn filibuster just stymies us – I could bring up hundreds of more “close calls” manufactured by the well-paid charlatans in our Congress.
As another poster alluded to above, at the behest of AIPAC, I’m sure they’ll doctor this Syria vote to make it look like it was close and thus shunt away any obvious Israeli involvement/foreknowledge a la white vans filled with high-fiving Mossad agents and art student spy rings.
I mean really.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 23:40 utc | 94

@93
Well, dh, I can’t do everything
Contrary to what you may have already heard about me, I ain’t superman. Honest!!
Anyway, I’m sure you’re all well capable of spotting any lies anyone might post here tonight.
You want me to do it all for you?
that’s a rather unreasonable request imho 😉

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 23:44 utc | 96

@JSorrentine #90

claudio
You’ve lost this battle

wow, I am posting a few thoughts on an issue, you are at war

1) tattling to the site owner and trying to get me banned – one of the oldest and cheapest tactics.

you didn’t agree with me and so insulted me with this “hasbara” shit; I think you should be banned after maybe one warning; but of course this is b’s site and he decides

2) lying about what I said
3) lying about what you said
4) avoiding my points
5) changing the nature of the debate

you are just swinging at the air, can’t see any specific target you are aiming at

But beyond all that, I’ll just destroy your entire argument in a few sentences:
… KABLAM!!!! KABOOM!!! …
I mean, if they don’t know anything and AIPAC DOESN’T affect Congress shouldn’t the votes of the 535 concerning the Middle East be scattershot and random?
Sometimes FOR Israel and sometimes AGAINST?
Why come they vote to support Israel’s side of things EVERY single time issues concerning the ME arise?
I mean, even to the detriment of American security and safety, they vote with Israel and have FOR DECADES.
So, with this in mind, would you like to address this point or are you going to tattle some more?

I answered already (post #47, point 3): I think AIPAC interests largely coincide with the military-industrial complex; and obviously these interests don’t coincide with those of the Us taken as a nation; in particular, after the fall of the USSR, Us militarism and supremacism reverted to the permanent war meme, which became dominant after 911; Israel was both an example for the neocons, and a tool that guaranteed permanent war under the guise of clash of civilizations; besides, in the original neocon group were real Israel-firsters (like Leeden) that were subsequently purged after the Iraq debacle;
you would shatter my argument if you gave me an example where Congress voted according to AIPAC’s wishes but against Boeing’s or Lockheed’s interests
anyways, I haven’t insulted you, you aren’t insulting me now, if we concentrate in articulating our arguments our exchange might even become interesting

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 23:56 utc | 98

hmm

Whatever happened to “reasoned, respectful, adult debate”?

don’t bother, it’s not your area of expertise

Posted by: claudio | Sep 5 2013 0:02 utc | 100