Fifteen years ago today, the US launched its “shock and awe” attack against Iraq. The war was based on lies and propaganda, it cost trillions, and it left perhaps a million dead. To date no one has been punished for this disaster. Have we learned our lesson not to listen to neocon lies? Hardly! On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
Originally appeared on The American Conservative.
The Wall Street Journal has distinguished itself for promoting pro-Saudi and pro-Emirati propaganda about the war on Yemen, gushing over Mohammed bin Salman, and for credulous reporting on the war and the humanitarian crisis it has created. Now their editors rail against S.J.Res. 54 because it threatens to put an end to the war they have supported for three years:
Saudi Arabia finally has a young leader pushing social and economic reform, fighting Iran’s attempt to dominate the Middle East, and even cooperating quietly with Israel. Wouldn’t you know now would be the time that a left-right coalition in Congress wants to snub this ally by pretending to be commanders in chief.
The WSJ editorial does its best to duck the real issues at stake while casting baseless aspersions at opponents of an indefensible war. U.S. involvement in the war is unauthorized by Congress, and it does constitute engaging in hostilities. US refueling of coalition planes makes our government a party to the conflict, and it means that our military is engaged in hostilities against the coalition’s enemies even if they are not directly involved in the fighting. The language of the War Powers Resolution is clear on this point. Our military is participating in the movement of coalition forces while they are carrying out attacks in Yemen, and as such they have been introduced into hostilities without Congress’ authorization.
The Saudi-led coalition is responsible for most of the war’s civilian casualties. The claim that their “targeting has improved thanks to US intelligence and training” ignores that the coalition has frequently targeted civilian structures and infrastructure on purpose. Our military has just confirmed that they don’t track what happens after the refuel coalition planes, so by their own admission they have no way of knowing what the coalition is doing with the support that our government happily provides. The coalition has committed numerous war crimes, and so long as the US provides refueling and arms for their bombing campaign our government is complicit in those crimes. Voting for S.J.Res. 54 is also a vote to put an end to that complicity. Because US support for the coalition is so important to their war effort, they would be hard-pressed to continue their campaign without it. Halting support for the bombing campaign is the best option that the US has for ending the war and ameliorating the country’s humanitarian crisis.
Continue reading “The Wall Street Journal’s Pathetic Case for Supporting the War on Yemen”
"Public Troubled by Deep State" is the headline that the Monmouth University Polling Institute tags to its recent poll.
Polling about the term "Deep State" is problematical, because as the polling report says: "Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term "Deep State;" another 24% are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term."
So the careful pollsters at Monmouth defined the term as follows for their interviewees: "The term Deep State refers to the possible existence of a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy." Then they asked whether such a group exists.
Monmouth reports the results as follows: "Nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of apparatus exists in Washington. This includes 27% who say it definitely exists and 47% who say it probably exists. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist (16% probably not and 5% definitely not)."
Furthermore, these opinions do not follow a partisan divide. The report continues: "Belief in the probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan group, although Republicans (31%) and independents (33%) are somewhat more likely than Democrats (19%) to say that the Deep State definitely exists."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 19, 2018
CONTACT: Sarah Peck, 202-228-1174; Miryam Lipper, 202-365-2176
Kaine Statement On U.S. Involvement In Conflict In Yemen & Sanders-Lee-Murphy Resolution
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, released the following statement today announcing his support for the joint resolution to direct the removal of U.S. armed forces from hostilities in Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress:
“The civil war in Yemen has led to a devastating humanitarian crisis – more than 10,000 civilians have been killed and millions of Yemenis are on the brink of famine. In support of the Saudi-led coalition, the U.S. has stumbled into yet another war without a clear strategy or end in sight. I support the Sanders-Lee-Murphy proposal because I am concerned about continued U.S. involvement in Yemen against the Houthis. Our priority must be ending this conflict through a peace process and focusing on al-Qaeda and ISIS.”
Former Russian spy-turned-UK-spy Sergei Skripal was apparently poisoned earlier this month in the UK. British Prime Minister Theresa May wasted no time in blaming the Russian government and its president, Vladimir Putin personally. Although signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention must provide samples and evidence when requesting clarification on such matters — and are given ten days to do so – Prime Minister May demanded that Russia prove itself not guilty under a 24 hour deadline and refused to hand over any evidence. Why not follow the rules? Is this a false flag to feed the Russiphobia that is rampant? Tune in to today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
Delivered to The Israel Lobby and American Policy 2018 conference March 2, 2018 at the National Press Club
The Israel Lobby and American Policy conference was solely sponsored by the American Educational Trust, publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep). This is a rush transcript.
Dale Sprusansky: Our next speaker is discussing the topic of Christian Zionism. For those of you who don’t know, Christian Zionism is the belief that the establishment of the modern state of Israel in the Holy Land is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and thus deserves unrelenting support from Christians. When President Donald Trump announced in December his intention to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, many attributed his decision to the power of Christian Zionists, who are a key Trump constituency and have a powerful and devoted member in Vice President Mike Pence. But just how powerful the Christian Zionists are is up for debate, and we will address that today.
There are also theological questions about Christian Zionism and the extent to which it is a legitimate interpretation of scripture and the extent to which it is heretical. I like that word. Finally, questions as to how it started, where is it going, and who is challenging the evangelical community.
To discuss this today, we have Thomas Getman. He is a partner in a private consulting group that specializes in international, United Nations, and nongovernmental organization affairs. He got his start in South Africa, in fighting for justice there, and later discovered the Palestine issue. He has worked primarily, as many of you know, for World Vision, where he worked continuously for Palestinian issues in the West Bank and Gaza.
With that, I would like to introduce him to discuss Christian Zionism.
Thomas Getman: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks to the wonderful organization of our sponsoring groups and for your being here to discuss these important issues with us.
As the resident theologian today, I must tell you that, particularly this morning, I was reminded that we operate within a very secular climate – but we also operate in an aura of the creation ordinances. And sometimes that’s forgotten. I cut my eyeteeth on human rights in the Middle East because the likes of [Archbishop Desmond] Tutu and [Rev. Allan] Boesak and [Rev.] Beyers Naudé and people like that said to me, if I really wanted to prove my bona fides in terms of human rights, I should turn my eyes to the Palestinians. I really am grateful for that, because I was, truth be told, a complicit evangelical Zionist – like the polling data today showed – but unwittingly. I didn’t even know what it meant.
Continue reading “When and How Did Evangelicals Become Zionists?: Thomas R. Getman”
