MUST SEE Crosstalk on the Iran-Obama Deal
This is the first time I have seen RT’s Crosstalk show, but what a great show it is. There is a quick and knowledgeable host in Peter Lavelle and great guests. In this edition, the guests include Ron Paul Institute Director Daniel McAdams. After you see his performance here and the knowledge he displays, you will know why Ron Paul picked him to head the Institute.
RT CrossTalk video capture added to Robert’s original post.
By Ron Paul
What Was Not Said About Iraq
October was Iraq’s deadliest month since April, 2008. In those five and a half years, not only has there been no improvement in Iraq’s security situation, but things have gotten much worse. More than 1,000 people were killed in Iraq last month, the vast majority of them civilians. Another 1,600 were wounded, as car bombs, shootings, and other attacks continue to maim and murder.
As post-“liberation” Iraq spirals steadily downward, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in Washington last week to plead for more assistance from the United States to help restore order to a society demolished by the 2003 US invasion. Al-Qaeda has made significant recent gains, Maliki told President Obama at their meeting last Friday, and Iraq needs more US military aid to combat its growing influence.
Obama pledged to work together with Iraq to address al-Qaeda’s growing presence, but what was not said was that before the US attack there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. The appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq coincided with the US attack. They claimed we had to fight terror in Iraq, but the US invasion resulted in the creation of terrorist networks where before there were none. What a disaster.
Maliki also told President Obama last week that the war in next-door Syria was spilling over into Iraq, with the anti-Assad fighters setting off bombs and destabilizing the country. Already more than 5,000 people have been killed throughout Iraq this year, and cross-border attacks from Syrian rebels into Iraq are increasing those numbers. Again, what was not said was that the US government had supported these anti-Assad fighters both in secret and in the open for the past two years.
Earlier in the week a group of Senators – all of whom had supported the 2003 US invasion of Iraq – sent a strongly-worded letter to Obama complaining that Maliki was far too close to the Iranian government next door. What was not said was that this new closeness between the Iraqi and Iranian governments developed under the US-installed government after the US invasion of Iraq.
Surely there is plenty of blame that can be placed on Maliki and the various no-doubt corrupt politicians running Iraq these days. But how was it they came to power? Were we not promised by those promoting the war that it would create a beach-head of democracy in the Middle East and a pro-American government?
According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, in early 2001 as the new Bush administration was discussing an attack on Iraq, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, “Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s allied with US interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond it. It would demonstrate what US policy is all about.”
We see all these years later now how ridiculous this idea was.
I have long advocated the idea that since we just marched in, we should just march out. That goes for US troops and also for US efforts to remake Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and everywhere the neocon wars of “liberation” have produced nothing but chaos, destruction, and more US enemies overseas. We can best improve the situation by just leaving them alone.
The interventionists have unfortunately neither learned their lesson from the Iraq debacle nor have they changed their tune. They are still agitating for regime change in Syria, even as they blame the Iraqi government for the destabilization that spills over. They are still agitating for a US attack on Iran, with Members of Congress introducing legislation recently that would actually authorize US force against Iran.
It looks like a very slow learning curve for our bipartisan leaders in Washington. It’s time for a change
Ron Paul Discusses the Ron Paul Institute on the Tom Woods Show
Ron Paul, chairman and founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, discussed RPI and its work to “promote the idea of nonintervention in foreign policy” Tuesday on the Tom Woods Show.
Listen to the 26 minutes wide-ranging interview here:
Published by TomWoodsTV
Tom Woods, whose New York Times bestseller Meltdown features a foreword by Dr. Paul, asks the former congressman questions submitted by listeners.
Video capture added to original post.
Pure Failure in Benghazi, 60 Minutes reports: Our team was unguarded, and then abandoned when attacked. Damning report.
Good for 60 Minutes. Maybe there are still some real journalists out there in the #oldmedia.
According to this report, supported by interviews with key people involved in defending Ambassador Stevens and his team, the CIA compound was “defended” only by local Libyan militia members (who fled as soon as Al Qaeda descended on the building) and an unarmed American security detail.
What kind of absolutely boneheaded security planning is this? Get the local boys to man the turrets while they learn the lay of the land and talk to to their buddies? And an unarmed American security detail? Why unarmed?
Then when the fight begins, with our team heavily out gunned, no support was called in? In fact the assistant to the ambassador was specifically told that no help was on the way. Again why? We had no one off the coast ready to offer cover in the event this sort of thing happened? I am sure we did. If we didn’t (which I can’t imagine) this is a logistical disaster on a colossal scale. But for whatever reason we didn’t send anyone in. No hell-fire missiles were shot by drones which undoubtedly were patrolling the skies above Benghazi. No, the ambassador and his team were basically left to die Alamo style, as quietly as possible.
Don’t forget. The American public was told that the attack was a spontaneous act of violence born from a protest against an anti-Muslim movie that almost no one saw. This is a lie which was told over and over in the critical weeks after the attack.
Benghazi was a gross failure of the Obama administration with potentially huge impact on the soon to be held 2012 US presidential elections. Likewise it was also as big a failure for Hillary Clinton’s State Department with potentially as big an impact on her likely run for president in 2016.
The below video is an important report. We commend 60 Minutes for it and we are pleased that it appears that not all of the mainstream media, an entity we often call the “crony media,” can be cowed by Washington.
Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org
About Nick Sorrentino
Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.
No comment, other than…
A Political Shift in America – Lew Rockwell (video)
Published by NextNewsNetwork
Written by RPI Staff
Ron Paul With Charlie Rose: ‘The Meaning of Non-Interventionism’
Do not miss Ron Paul’s extensive interview on the Charlie Rose show. He gives the best yet definition of his personal philosophy, called “non-interventionism,” which also is the philosophical framework of his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He also offers important insights on Syria and his amazing new education freedom book.
Video capture added to RPI original post.
Written by Ron Paul
Has The Tide Turned Against the Warmongers?
Will the history books record these past couple of weeks as the point when the tide finally turned against our interventionist foreign policy?
We began September with the Obama Administration on the verge of launching Tomahawk missiles at Syria. The missiles were needed, the administration claimed, to punish the Syrian government for using poison gas on its own people. There were reports that in addition to missiles, the administration was planning airstrikes and possibly even more military action against Syria. The talks of a punishing “shot across the bow” to send a message to the Syrian government also escalated, as some discussed the need to degrade the Syrian military to help change the regime. They refused to rule out a US ground invasion of Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry even invoked an old bogeymen that had worked so many times before. Assad was another Hitler, we were told, and failure to attack would equate to another Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement.
The administration released its evidence to back up the claim that the Syrian government was behind the gassing, and the president asked Congress to authorize him to use force against Syria. Polls showed that the American people had very little interest in getting involved in another war in the Middle East, and as the administration presented no solid evidence for its claim, public support eroded further. The media, as usual, was pushing war propaganda.
Then something incredible happened. It started in the British parliament, with a vote against participating in a US-led attack on Syria. The UK had always reliably backed the US when it came to war overseas, and the vote was a shock. Though the House and Senate leadership lined up behind the president’s decision to attack Syria, the people did not. Support among the rank and file members of the Senate and House began to evaporate, as thousands of Americans contacted their representatives to express outrage over the president’s plan. The vote looked to be lost in the House and uncertain in the Senate. Then even Senators began to feel the anger of the American people, and it looked like a devastating and historic loss for the president was coming.
The administration and its pro-war allies could not bear to lose a vote in Congress that would have likely shut the door completely on a US attack, so they called off the vote. At least for now. It would have been far better to have had the president’s request for war authorization debated and voted down in the House and Senate, but even without a no vote it is clear that a major shift has taken place. A Russian proposal to secure and dismantle the Syrian government’s chemical weapons was inspired, it seems, by John Kerry’s accidental suggestion that such a move could avert a US strike. Though the details have yet to be fully worked out, it seems the Russia plan, agreed to by the Syrian government, gives us hope that a US attack will be avoided.
The American people have spoken out against war. Many more are now asking what I have been asking for quite some time: why is it always our business when there is civil strife somewhere overseas? Why do we always have to be the ones to solve the world’s problems? It is a sea change and I am very encouraged. We have had a great victory for the cause of peace and liberty and let’s hope we can further build on it.
Image credit: http://ronpaulinstitute.org
Submitted by Tyler Durden
Ron Paul On American Exceptionalism
Ron Paul has his own take on what it means to be ‘exceptional’… it seems “inspire”, and ‘lead by example’ is preferable to ‘threaten’ and ‘attack’…
Screen capture added to original post.
Written by Daniel McAdams
US and Russia Reach Agreement on Syria Weapons — Can The US Stop Arming the Jihadists Now?
The US and Russia yesterday reached what looks to be a solid agreement on how to proceed with the dismantling of the chemical weapons stores of the Syrian government as well as destruction of Syria’s production capabilities. Syria agreed to the Russian-proposed deal (with a little inspiration from US Secretary of State John Kerry) with the understanding that giving up its chemical weapons would avert a US military attack.
The agreement seems full enough of ambiguities regarding the consequences of less than full Syrian compliance to allow the US government some face-saving saber rattling about retaining the option to strike unilaterally, while being vague enough in defining what exactly constitutes non-compliance to make difficult a clear cut case for a UN Chapter 7 use of force resolution. In other words, seemingly win-win.
The process of identifying and destroying the Syrian cache of chemical weapons is supposed to be completed by next year, but adhering to such a timeline can be difficult. In 1997, the US promised to destroy its vast stores of chemical and biological weapons in ten years. Thirteen years later, the US retains some 2,611 tons of mustard gas and 524 tons of other chemical weapons, including sarin gas.
The US and Russian side have both indicated a new determination to bring the Syrian government and the insurgents fighting to overthrow it to a new round of talks in Geneva, optimistically by October. This is unlikely, however, as although the Russian side had managed to secure agreement to attend on the part of the Syrian government, with which it maintains cordial relations, the US has been completely unable to secure any agreement with the various insurgent factions it is supporting.
Western media and governments claimed that the armed Syrian rebellion started because the Syrian government fired on peaceful demonstrators. That has been proven false many times over, as it became clear that the Islamist extremist struggle against the secular Assad regime had been planned well in advance by forces outside Syria and had been armed from the start.
That Assad retains a level of popularity among the Syrian population — particularly the Christian minority that has come under attack by the insurgents — has been confirmed by polls and by the simple fact that two years into an insurgency heavily supported by outside powers he has managed to retain his position. If his government were as unpopular as was claimed, it would have been impossible to withstand the internal and external pressure.
The US/Russia agreement takes the WMD issue off the table for the US and its regime change allies in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, and elsewhere. US action is required, it has been claimed, because the Syrian government’s chemical weapons stores are a threat to the region and beyond. Those are to be secured by the UN.
So by what justification does the United States continue to arm and train, in violation of international law, the insurgents that seek to overthrow the Syrian government?
The answer is that there is no justification, as should be obvious at this point. Will the media begin asking these questions? Don’t hold your breath, but there is a sense that a profound shift in the “unipolar moment” that has categorized the post-Cold War period has taken place. There is a sense that the tectonic plates of the existing world order have shifted slightly. History shows us that when a shift occurs, in plate tectonics and in world balance of power, the resulting earthquake can be sudden and profound.
Flickr/Secretary of Defense
Written by Daniel McAdams
The Real Elizabeth O’Bagy Scandal
So now we know that Elizabeth O’Bagy, the “expert” cited by Secretary Kerry, Senator McCain, and others as an important impartial source claiming that moderates, not radicals, dominate among Syrian insurgents is a liar.
Her padded resume was a convenient excuse for her termination from her main job at Kimberly Kagan’s Institute for the Study of War (where arch-neocon William Kristol is Chairman).
However the real scandal is not O’Bagy’s falsely claimed PhD, but rather that at her other job, for the Syrian Emergency Task Force, she had been at the enter of a massive propaganda and influence campaign aimed at the American people, pushing the idea that there were moderates in Syria who the US should be supporting. O’Bagy played a key role in that influence campaign and she was being paid to lie about the insurgents by the US government itself! Yes, the real scandal is that O’Bagy was being paid as a State Department contractor to pose as a Syria expert and convince Americans that the Syrian insurgents should be supported.
The media largely ignores this huge story preferring the easier and less dangerous story that she faked her PhD.
O’Bagy has a senior position in the US-government funded Syrian Emergency Task Force, headed by the very shady Mouaz Moustafa. Moustafa’s SETF is the organization that organized Senator McCain’s disastrous visit to Syria in May, where he met with thugs and kidnappers while claiming that they were moderates who deserved support. McCain was so taken by the Syrian insurgent kidnappers he met that he proposed a pajama party at their house and had to be dragged away by his security detail. You can see McCain and Moustafa, along with the Syrian insurgent kidnappers, in this now-famous photo.
Moustafa has a bizarre resume of his own. Before heading up the US-government funded Syria regime change lobbying group, he was Executive Director of the Libyan Council of North America, pushing for regime change in Libya. Was he on the US government payroll in that position as well?
More strange — or not — he has a long history with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), known as “AIPAC’s think tank,” even once (since scrubbed) being listed as an “expert” for that pro-Israel neoconservative “policy institute.”
Who are these people and why is Washington paying them to covertly influence public opinion in the United States in favor of regime change overseas?
And more importantly, now that their lies about the non-existent “moderates” among the insurgent groups fighting to overthrow the Syrian government have been exposed, why is the US government delivering weapons anyway to the radicals, jihadists, and criminals fighting in Syria?
How many of these new US-provided weapons will end up in the hands of the vicious jihadist thugs now laying siege to Maaloula, home of some of the last people on earth to still speak the native tongue of Jesus Christ? However, small arms are not as useful to them in their ethnic cleansing of Christians. They prefer dull knives for beheadings.
We are being lied to about Syria, and to add insult to injury we are being forced to pay for the privilege. The myriad of cut-out NGOs pose as independent voices but in fact are on the payroll of the US government. That is the scandal. Not fake PhD’s.
Image credit: http://ronpaulinstitute.org