Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 04, 2013

Syrian Oppo: "Dead Syrian Ex-Minister Defects To Turkey"

Reuters, Sep 4, 2013: Exclusive: Former Syria defense minister breaks with Assad-Labwani
Former Syrian Defence Minister General Ali Habib, a prominent member of President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect, has defected and is now in Turkey, a senior member of the opposition Syrian National Coalition told Reuters on Wednesday.

"Ali Habib has managed to escape from the grip of the regime and he is now in Turkey, but this does not mean that he has joined the opposition. I was told this by a Western diplomatic official," Kamal al-Labwani said from Paris.
A Gulf source told Reuters that Habib had defected on Tuesday evening, arriving at the Turkish frontier before midnight with two or three other people. He was then taken across the border in a convoy of vehicles.

Born in 1939, Habib was defense minister from June 2009 to August 2011 and has also served as Chief of the General Staff of the Syrian Army. He is from the port city of Tartus.

YnetNews, Sep 8, 2011: Syrian opposition: Ousted defense minister dead
Websites affiliated with Syrian opposition groups reported on Tuesday that General Ali Habib was found dead in his home a day after he was dismissed as defense minister. On Monday, Syrian President Bashar Assad appointed army chief Dawood Rajha to replace Habib.

The SANA news agency reported Monday that Habib had been suffering from a deterioration in his health.
Opposition websites also quoted Syria TV reports allegedly suggesting that Habib had died a natural death.

So who dug him up?

Posted by b on September 4, 2013 at 14:25 UTC | Permalink

next page »

LOL b! I know the media loves Zombies, but, this one takes the cake.

Posted by: ben | Sep 4 2013 14:29 utc | 1

WTF?? I need to get a job as a reporter. Apparently, it's quite easy to do and doesn't require much attention to detail.

Posted by: Jessica S | Sep 4 2013 14:41 utc | 2

:-)) good catch.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 14:44 utc | 3

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

Was he put to sleep or did he actually die of a natural cause?

Posted by: Shoes | Sep 4 2013 14:47 utc | 5

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

@Jessica S (#2)
I don't think that you realize how difficult the job as reporter is, and what sort of qualifications it requires. Can you bring back people from dead and get them to defect? :)

Posted by: pirouz_2 | Sep 4 2013 14:58 utc | 7

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

Actually it's an escaped zombie from the set of World War Z masquerading as General Ali Habib. They haven't produced him at a news conference yet because all he can say is 'gnnnnkgkgkggkggggghhhh?'* and he keeps on biting his handlers.


*Zomb for 'Who ate your brains habibi?'

Posted by: Dubhaltach | Sep 4 2013 15:09 utc | 9

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

Habib will be joining Kerry at the UN Irrefutable Evidence Presentation. Think Adams family.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 15:22 utc | 11

in fact Syrian tv resurrected him only HOURS after his announced death ^^

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

lol! i adore you b!

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2013 15:42 utc | 13

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

dh - ROFL !

Or the Munsters, with Samantha Power playing the straight daughter. A satin ribbon in her hair maybe.

Posted by: L Bean | Sep 4 2013 15:52 utc | 15

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

If all is possible, different people with the same name, to many generals, and all is disinformation, I think, B, its better to change of page, and for example , pls we can speak of Fukushima. What is happening in Fukushima?

Posted by: anonymous | Sep 4 2013 16:06 utc | 17

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

Me name is anonymous42.

Posted by: anonymous42 | Sep 4 2013 16:08 utc | 19

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

@17 - " pls we can speak of Fukushima.":

there's an open thread right there on the front page.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 16:16 utc | 21

@20 They are working on the language . The AUMF is still very open-ended according to this...

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

The article is still up at Reuters website, but I'll bet Reuters website has been hacked again -- it has happened before, as 'b' is aware. The Reuters article was written by Khaled Yacoub Oweis. Under the name of that reporter, the Reuters website has genuinely printed tons of falsehoods from rebel sources over the last 30 months. But I don't think this one's genuine, because I don't believe Khaled Yacoub Oweis would've forgotten the very public sudden retirement of the former minister of defense in Aug 2011.

I remember, in Aug 2011, Ali Habib went on Syrian State TV in civilian clothing a day or two after his resignation to declare publicly that the rumors that he defected were scurrilous falsehoods, and that he supported the government, and that his sudden retirement was prompted by bad news about his health. I remember seeing the video on Youtube at the time. Here is that video:

Now another point is that I wouldn't trust YnetNews to tell me that Ali Habib died. Especially not that he died a day or two after his resignation, when I saw him on TV. I cannot remember whether there was a funeral for Ali Habib somewhat later, or not. For a reasonable person to believe that he died back then, it'd be necessary to hear it from SANA or Addounia or suchlike, and not from the likes of YnetNews.

I'm not sure that Ali Habib is dead, but I'm sure he was or is an Assad loyalist till his last breath of life. I wouldn't trust Khaled Yacoub Oweis to tell me the time of day, but I feel he'd be informed enough to know that this story must be bogus.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 4 2013 16:28 utc | 23

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

The defector is Gen Ali Habib's replacement - who is also called Gen Ali Habib.

This works somewhat akin to the situation when a popular actor needs to be replaced in a TV or movie series due to old age or death.

The producers simply hire another person to take over the role.

Hardly anyone notices after the first episode or two.

Posted by: jmk88 | Sep 4 2013 16:50 utc | 25

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

Well, the Russians findings are about to drop preliminary reports point to - surprise - Kerry STFU.


Russian expert findings show the weapon used in the Syrian chemical attack was similar to the ones made by a rebel group.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 17:09 utc | 27

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 many ali habib's work at syrian MoD? re hearings: how can you bring bloodthirsty dictators to account with a couple hundred-thousand pounds of HE? 500 tops? a million?

Posted by: bfrakes | Sep 4 2013 17:19 utc | 29

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

On a more serious topic, here are three US public opinion polls about the US attacking Syria, published yesterday.

The first of the three has got lots of demographic breakdowns and includes an informative breakdown by "strongly support" versus "somewhat support". You have to click on "Detailed view" to see these details. WashingtonPost - ABC News poll, conducted by phone 28 Aug - 1 Sep 2013:

The second of the three is Reuters/Ipsos ongoing daily "tracker poll" (which is conducted ongoingly online). Reuters summary of yesterday's output of the tracker poll: "The findings are essentially unchanged from last week and indicated that Obama changed few minds on Saturday [31 Aug]." . In a separate tracking poll reported by Reuters yesterday, 65 percent agreed with a statement that said "the problems of Syria are none of our business."

The third poll is from PEW Research Center for People and the Press and was conducted 29 Aug - 1 Sep 2013:

I continue to believe the outcome of the vote in Congress will be a reflection of the USA public opinion polls.

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 4 2013 17:36 utc | 31

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

The US army is now rented out as mercenaries

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab counties offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 17:50 utc | 33

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

@Parviziyi and all - the reason for this post is not to show that the General is here or there, but a statement against the propaganda of the Syrian opposition and how the agencies, like Reuters, still eat it after two years of chronical opposition lying.

Posted by: b | Sep 4 2013 18:00 utc | 35


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

Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike

My favorite part is how these traitorous scum have coordinated their campaign to coincide with Rosh Hashanah so that their message of murder and war crimes is echoed by the rabbis.

Oh, but it's the scary scary Muslims that are America's problem, huh?

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 18:09 utc | 37

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

More on AIPAC and how they specifically are working it:

Problems with the coverage: even those seemingly critical of AIPAC/Israel will never mention the Yinon Plan or A Clean Break.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 18:20 utc | 39

@somebody /33

Thank you for the Link.Very intereresting.

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

@#20: Talking of children, this link takes you to a video that shows two Syrian children executed in cold blood by the 'rebels' (not for the squeamish).

Rebls execute two boys

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 4 2013 18:31 utc | 41

I thought might be of interest to Don.

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

Syrian/ME timeline/overview by Cartalucci covering last 20 years or so. Some interesting items with links.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 19:05 utc | 43

The Independent is reporting Gen Habib was smuggled out of Syria with the help of a Western country.

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

“An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities…t is harder to sell a war of choice to the American public and to Congress if the death toll is 281, or 350, than if it is 1,429, “including 426 children.””

Read more:

Posted by: KerKaraje | Sep 4 2013 20:01 utc | 45

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

I've come to some (temporary) conclusions, regarding this sudden drive for war, in a situation that seems much more obscure to me than to many posters here:

1) I think behind Obama's push for war are two main factors:

1a) the fact that Assad, instead of being weakened by the aggression, was in fact becoming stronger, rejuvenating the Party, hardening the military, and creating a more cohesive society; Assad rose to the challenge and acquired a status as a political and state leader he didn't have before; the risk was, after Israel helped create the Hezbollah heroes in 2006, that Assad would become another iconic figure of resistance to western aggression

1b) the military-industrial complex (aka the "permanent war" lobby), represented in this instance by Kerry and Biden

2) I don't think Obama is a "reluctant warrior", prisoner of his own rhetoric on "red lines", etc; he could have called for a thorough UN-led inspection, if he had wanted to; at most, he is unwilling to resist Kerry's overbearing; rather, betraying his background as a lawyer, he is covering his ass; AIPAC was practically forced out in the open, because you can't expect US congressmen to "interpret" AIPAC's wishes; its modus operandi is to write very clear letters and even propose draft resolutions on the issues over which it takes a stance, and periodically publish scorecards on how coherently congressmen voted on the issues they were lobbied on; it's doing so these very days regarding the hardening of sanctions on Iran; Republicans, too, are being forced to take a stance

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;

4) My impression is that the CW casus belli was a red flag operation, botched in the execution; Obama was ready to jump on it, and to cut short the UN investigation, because it would have exposed its allies' (Israel and KSA) scheming

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 20:29 utc | 47

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

@ 'b' #35: I misread the intention of the YnetNews bit. Apologies.

@ TikTok #44: The UK Independent is simply re-reporting Reuters' "exclusive" about Ali Habib. Notice that Reuters' only source for the story is a Syrian opposition activist in Paris, who in turn says his source for it an unnamed "Western diplomatic official".

From John Kerry's testimony in the House of Congress today about the chemicals incidents:

"Some, here and there, amazingly, have questioned the evidence of this assault on conscience. I repeat here again today: only the most willful desire to avoid reality can assert that this did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it. It did happen – and the Assad regime did do it.... You have heard a great deal from me and others in the Administration about the clear and comprehensive evidence we’ve collected in the days following the attack on August 21, so I won’t go through it again today.... We have spoken up against unspeakable horror. Now we must stand up and act."

With those words, is Kerry a liar or is he dumb and rash? He's both. As Ray McGovern has said: "He's not just mistaken; he is fraudulent."

Posted by: Parviziyi | Sep 4 2013 20:35 utc | 49


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


"AIPAC was practically forced out in the open, because you can't expect US congressmen to "interpret" AIPAC's wishes"

Yeah, claudio, you're exactly right about AIPAC. I mean, how could one interpret what they wanted on Syria?

Oh that's right I guess one COULD go to their website and read one of the MANY publications there against Syria.

My favorite is entitled "Danger from Damascus" and was written in August of 2012. You'll notice that the 1st three bullet points are all about CWs and how they threaten Israel.

I'm also sure when our "stupid" Congresspeople passed H.R. 1905 - The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 under intense pressure of AIPAC they just couldn't interpret what AIPAC wanted righ, too?

#hasbarafail #pathetic

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 20:49 utc | 51

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

@48 That SFRC vote isn't exactly an overwhelming vote for bombardment. 10 to 7. Take out McCain makes 9 to 7. Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Markey voted present. If he'd voted no it would be 8 to 8.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 20:59 utc | 53


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

"The US army is now rented out as mercenaries

Kerry: Arab countries offered to pay for invasion "

If ksa were to pay, would they have to raise the oil prices to recover their cost?
and what implication may be down the road on petro dollars...

Posted by: Rd. | Sep 4 2013 21:04 utc | 55

@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) Nobody can push 300 million people into a war they do not want. If the US goes to war they want that war.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 21:05 utc | 57

@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

last post intended for #58

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 21:12 utc | 59

I mean #57 darnit.

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

56) Yep, and senate has to vote on it now. Republicans are obviously happy to vote against Obama if their constituency/donors allow it, democrats will be under party pressure though not to vote against Obama, if their constituents threaten them there might be a rebellion though.

The names of the kids and their parents in those videos is needed. Syria should be able to supply them.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 21:15 utc | 61

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


"Nobody can push 300 million people into a war they do not want. If the US goes to war they want that war."

Wow, I've never been blindsided by such (scripted?) naivete in my life.

We'll take it slow as you couldn't possibly be an American judging by your comments.

There are 535 members of Congress and scores of officials in the Executive Branch who ROUTINELY do things that the mighty 300 millions Americans do not support in any way. They don't care. They PRETEND to care around election time - see "Hope and Change" c2008. - but they really don't give a rat's ass.

They listen to lobbyists like AIPAC who give them money and gifts and who knows what else.

In addition, the mighty 300 million also live in a constant sphere of incessant Zionist propaganda that has imbued in their minds that the apartheid state of Israel is actually a good and worthwhile friend of the US when the reality is the exact polar opposite.

So when the ~600 "representatives" of the 300m make decisions based upon what the apartheid state of Israel wants - even if it is against our national interest - the brainwashing kicks in and assures them as long as it's our "buddy" Israel it's AOK.

I could have also quoted Goebbels, Bernays and a host of others but I fear it'd all be lost on you.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 4 2013 21:23 utc | 63

@57 Bullsh*^

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


you think the Cia, the Pentagon, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, started their world-wide operations in the late '40s under the banner of the Cold War in compliance to Israel lobbying?

or that as the Israel Lobby started to rise, those other Us lobbies faded in the background and dissolved? or started taking orders?

or that Zionists only hold cash with which to buy votes?

I am open to any kind of objections to my tentative conclusions over the forces at play in this particular circumstance (aggression on Syria), but please don't try to paint a picture where the only actors are Zionists and 535 jellyfish (though I agree on the 535 jellyfish part)

the Zionist lobby was permitted to rise in the Us (and, granted, took much more space than foreseen) precisely because it advanced an agenda of permanent war, welcome to Us lobbies, after the fall of the USSR

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 21:37 utc | 65

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

62) McCain is definitively not the young Republican generation. Would Democrats want to be seen voting with him?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 21:44 utc | 67

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.

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

@dh #58

It's not a war. It's a 'limited military mission'. Not that difficult to sell.

dh, this is precisely one the points I have troubles explaining; it shouldn't be that difficult to sell, yet faithful vassals (and friends of Israel) like Italy, Uk and Canada, among others, quickly refused to take part in it; something's happening I don't understand, I admit; and some "explanations" proposed I find uncharacteristically simplistic for MoA

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 21:50 utc | 69


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

@69 The UK definitely showed some independence on this one. Of course they got castigated for it but they haven't apologized. Italy I don't know what's going on there. Canada? Wait and see. The US has a lot of leverage there. Harper is probably waiting to see which way the vote goes.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 22:21 utc | 71

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

Jeez, yer not STILL arguing about AIPAC, are ya?

I thought we sorted through all that crap hours/days ago, no?

oh well, takes all-sorts, I guess.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 22:33 utc | 73

@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


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

@721 Dempsey is warning about consequences. Bottom line he is a patriotic soldier....he will follow orders.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 22:40 utc | 75

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

@hmmm #73

please read, if you want to contribute, my post #47 where I share my uncertain thoughts on the syrian crisis;

I think there are many sides that are worth exploring; AIPAC's wishes don't explain all that's going on these days; and if it was so omnipotent over the Us political system, then why not over its vassals and traditional faithful friends of Israel like Italy, Uk and Canada?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 22:42 utc | 77

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

@77 In answer to your question claudio I think we may be seeing a little blowback. Not in the US yet perhaps but it could be simmering.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 22:49 utc | 79

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

71) I think Western politicians just like the public are genuinely disgusted by US policy. They know the US is working with Al Qaida again. Not everybody is bribed and bought off. They know the US promotes and prolongs a civil war and no end is in sight. They take some of the Syrian refugees in now.

Stories like this found their way to the public

The five-member panel recounts how Blair, faced with Saudi threats to cut off cooperation on counterterrorism operations, personally intervened to scuttle a criminal investigation into billions of dollars in allegedly improper payments made by British Aerospace Systems (BAE) to obtain Saudi contracts.

But the former prime minister, the court found, acted out of good faith: he and his advisers were genuinely worried that, if the Saudis followed through on their threats, it could lead to another "7/7"—British shorthand for the devastating July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in the London subway system that killed 52 commuters and injured 700.

"The threats to national and international security [are] very grave indeed and ... British lives on British streets would be at risk," the British ambassador to Riyadh warned the Serious Fraud Office, the British unit conducting the probe, according to the court ruling.

Today's decision overrules a lower-court finding that Serious Fraud Office officials had improperly closed the investigation under pressure from Blair and thus effectively ends any chance that the SFO will pursue the BAE bribery allegations. (In a statement, the SFO said it will pursue other allegations against BAE not related to the Saudis. A spokesman for BAE denied wrongdoing but declined comment on the ruling.)
The ruling is also likely to fuel criticism that the Saudi government—which portrays itself as a key ally of the United States and Great Britain in the War on Terror—is far less cooperative than it publicly claims. "This shows how the Saudis can get foreign governments to disregard their own justice system," said Ali Al-Ahmed, the director of the Gulf Institute, a Washington-based think tank that is critical of the Saudi government. "Terrorism is being used to blackmail the West. You watch, it is only a matter of time before they do this in the U.S."

As a sign of how the Saudis frequently forge alliances with Western leaders who help them, Ahmed pointed out that just two weeks ago Blair was among the most prominent guests to show up at a worldwide conference of religions hosted by Saudi King Abdullah in Madrid. At the conference, Blair—who recently set up his own private foundation—lavished praise upon Abdullah. "The king has made a lot of reforms," said Blair. NEWSWEEK was unable to obtain comment from the Saudi Embassy on the new ruling.

Putin sounds genuinely disgusted, he won't be the only one

It was not the most diplomatic way to start a summit of world leaders. On Sept. 4, the day before Russian President Vladimir Putin begins hosting the G20 summit in his hometown of St. Petersburg, he accused the Obama Administration of lying to Congress, and said U.S. lawmakers were being suckered into approving a military strike against Syria. “We talk with these people. We assume that they are decent. But he lies,” Putin said of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. “And he knows that he lies. That’s pathetic.”

Posted by: somebody | Sep 4 2013 22:54 utc | 81

@ 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

@81 It's getting harder all the time to paint Putin as a bad guy.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 22:57 utc | 83

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

Likudniks certainly have more influence on US policy than, say, Laotians, Latvians, Liberians, or Lithuanians, but I think it’s more accurate to view Israel as the teeth of the dog, rather than the tail that wags the dog.

The Israeli and US systems share the capitalist imperative to exploit. If Israel didn’t exist, folks like Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump would still be violent, predatory, and ruthless.

Posted by: Watson | Sep 4 2013 23:08 utc | 85

Except to say "Thanks" also to somebody @33

That was a very interesting article

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

@86 Does this mean that somebody is not hasbara anymore?

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 23:15 utc | 87

"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

hmm, mine wasn't an invitation to intervene, it was an invitation to read what we (or at least I) were talking about, before intervening; but as I said, there's no need, you viewpoint is well represented by JSorrentine

Posted by: claudio | Sep 4 2013 23:24 utc | 89


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?


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


No it means that he is obviously capable of occasionally operating not solely as an blatantly dishonest habara-ist.

clearly he can multi-task, or mix-and-match, (flip/flop?) as the whim takes him

and I believe in giving credit where credit is due. and that article at @33 was useful info, for a change.

My problems with him stem from when he post obvious falsehoods.

Have not read the whole thread, so I have no idea if he's posting any falsehoods in this thread. But from the little I have seen he seems to be making some attempt to NOT post any obvious lies tonight, for which I suppose some extra credit is also due -

"well done Somebody!" for making the attempt to choose honesty over blatantly dishonest hasbara, (this evening at least)

So I have no real objection to him when he's not obviously knowingly posting obvious falsehoods.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 23:31 utc | 91

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

@ 91. Yes but surely when dealing with such a devious character it's impossible to know where he really stands? I frequently get confused here at MOA now I have to deal with multi-tasking? It gives me a headache.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 23:39 utc | 93


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

@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

Jeez, claudio, that's a little OTT, no?

Whatever happened to "reasoned, respectful, adult debate"?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 4 2013 23:41 utc | 95


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

@96. Not at all. I think you are doing an amazing job of exposing the truth. We would be helpless without you.

Posted by: dh | Sep 4 2013 23:48 utc | 97

@JSorrentine #90

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, yes you can take as a ground rule that you don't butt in in a discussion without reading the relevant posts

Posted by: claudio | Sep 5 2013 0:00 utc | 99


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

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.