?????

representative said, they are making money from selling Syrian and presumably Iraqi oil form oilfields they have overrun on the black market. I await your proposal for how to stop that.

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 09:49 AM - Edit history (6)

Nobody seems to want to put a finger on exactly how much cash is still flowing from ISIS funders. But, everyone agrees that support from the Saudis and Gulf states continues to be substantial. See, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006

If the Saudis and Qataris won't fully cooperate, then assets seizures and arrests are the next step.

If the majority of ISIS oil revenues are going through the black market in Turkey, then obviously further measures (including sanctions) need to be imposed there. Last June, at its height, a Turkish opposition MP estimated the annual oil revenues at $800 million. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006.

If accurate, that was about 40% of the total ISIS operating budget as stated by the group. Some estimates placed the IS annual total budget as high as $3 billion. See, http://thehill.com/policy/defense/228465-isis-puts-payments-to-poor-disabled-in-2-billion-budget; http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-news-caliphate-unveils-first-annual-budget-2bn-250m-surplus-war-chest-1481931

The $800 million figure is at the top end of the estimates. US sources quoted by CNN last October stated that ISIS oil income was more likely half that figure: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-funding/

that has to be filled by someone else. See my post #12 above for sources.

Do you have a spreadsheet with their income sheet?

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2015, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Here:

Here are useful analyses: financial - http://www.newsweek.com/isis-release-2015-budget-projections-2bn-250m-surplus-296577 ; $3 billion figure mentioned here - http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eilj45fgkie/1-isis-annual-turnover-2-billion/; military - http://www.understandingwar.org/isis-annual-reports-reveal-metrics-driven-military-command

You obviously have nothing much to offer in rebuttal.

Response?

in this FT article to 2012 and '13 annual reports, if you really want to see them yourself. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/69e70954-f639-11e3-a038-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=crm/email/2014617/nbe/AsiaMorningHeadlines/product#axzz34ktExR6g

Details of 2014 report and references to 2015 cited in Newsweek article linked above. Sorry, Steven, you'll have to do your own homework if you want more.

You can follow your laser beams where you want, Steven, but it doesn't appear to be part of the reality-based universe. You have to have sources on which to base your assertions, particularly if you want to claim to be a journalist. You simply don't.

funding has cut off contributions from KSA and Qatar. Your point appears to be that there is no need to take further measures to stem Saudi or Qatari funding. That claim was made in response to my assertion that ISIS is still receiving funding from Saudi and Gulf state elites, which will have to be cut off if the US is serious about eradicating ISIS.

If you are going to make such claims, you have to substantiate them by citing facts or figures as a base-line for comparing before and after the UN resolution you linked. You have provided absolutely no information, financial or otherwise, to back up your points.

To pretend the OP is a real journalist is an insult to all real journalists around the world. The OP is a hack. If that.

money?

and exported back out via the same route.

"... they'll leave us alone, too."

I'm big believer in the theory of blowback. I do believe that many of our current troubles were caused by our meddling. I also believe radical Islam would have eventually arrived at it's current state without our, um, assistance. That's how religion is. There are always (well, often) radicals who want to spread their beliefs by force. Christians have been the worst and if not for the reverence most of us give to our First Amendment, radical Christians would have even more of a grip on our national politics.

Isis, though, feels different. This isn't just blowback. It's opportunistic blowback by a group a bit smarter than other terrorist groups. They won't be appeased.

In college, I lived with two roomates in an apartment that had a roach problem - partly because we were so sloppy. Though it was partially our fault they were there, we called Pest Control anyway.

I'm always reminded of an old saying:

When tempted to fight fire with fire, one should remember that the fire department tends to use water.

There is almost a presumption that the ONLY response to violence is violence. The sad fact is the last two administrations have held this point of view. Both of them used the State Department to advocate for military action. The call for military action might actually hold more sway with "some progressives" if there was evidence that the administration had tried something else first. It isn't that "some progressives" don't want to do anything, it is that it is not apparent that either of the last two administrations have tried anything else. Their first reaction to Syria was the military/CIA approach. All their reactions have been as thus. Kerry was running around advocating for military action in Syria when the Russians of all people actually came up with the diplomatic solution that was finally embraced. Remember, it is our military action that created much of this mess to begin with. Doubling down on that should take something more than a shrug of the shoulders and saying "what else can we do?"

There are countries that border this region that are much more threatened than we are by the current activities in the region. It would seem that Kerry should be there to some extent "following their lead" not running down to the Pentagon to find out what they can do.

should often be paired with the theory of unintended consequences.

It is my often stated belief that the seeds of ISIS were planted by the CIA sponsored coup that toppled Iranian President Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. Mossadegh committed the unforgivable sin of attempting to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, and for that the UK and the US jointly conspired to eliminate him.

Throughout its' history, the US has demonstrated that it feels it has the moral and divine right to interfere in the affairs of nearly every nation on earth. If you can find a country where the US does not have a military presence, that country has no geographic strategic location, or that nation has no resources that the US needs.

ISIS practices in a small way the same large scale terror that the US has used against people everywhere when it suits its needs.

Ignoring your own history does not mean that other people will also ignore it. Being unaware of your own history does not mean others are also unaware.

the article, the question is to know when a threat is serious enough to risk using violence.

With ISIS, the answer to that question is obvious.

But if the possibility of blowback exists, and history is full of such examples, do we not arrive at Einstein's description of insanity, to wit: Insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome?

Violence begets more violence, until the fighters are exhausted or dead. When does the US learn, or can it, that violence is never a solution for violence?

If the roots of violence in the Middle East (in this particular case) spring directly from US and European colonialism, how are any actions taken by the US and/or European powers to be seen by people in the Middle East? As further interference!

The US is not seen by most of the world as a disinterested spectator coming to solve the world's problems. It is seen as yet another empire intent on ruling the world. Nice words from a US President(s) are generally shown as lies by the actions of the same US President(s).

And, of course, when they say, "We suck!" what they really mean is, "You suck!" because they have exempted themselves by virtue of their unfailing moral clarity.

If ISIS has any evils it is our fault. If any good can come from putting an end to their horror it cannot be the US. To suggest otherwise would be to challenge the most deeply held beliefs of the "We (really, "You&quot suck!" brigade and if that means the horrors ISIS inflicts are left unchecked they are prepared to accept the cost exacted upon others.

There is no opposition to ISIS, there is only realpolitik-ing where ISIS and those condemning action against them play upon each other -- only ISIS is playing the pro-game with a but of amateurs as their patsies.

That is their answer to everything and yes they are invested in attacking the US to a degree that can only be described as Orwell did and that is "Negative Nationalism". http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

And well put, I can only add... and it's long past getting old. Nearly every subject devolves into the "we suck" narrative rather speedily.

rationales provided to justify them.

So yes we do demonstrably suck but the bigger issue is that we are even more inept than we suck and understand the region even less than we are capable which would seem to require pulling back and figuring out how we keep screwing the pooch and making bad worse instead of more of the same.

You want to stick your dick in the beehive then go ahead but do it on your own dime, shed your own blood, you take all the blow back, find your own country to impoverish and neglect passing resources into the sand around the world, and own all your own "collateral damage" because I think the rest of us have been fucked around enough.

Like you folks are going to "own" anything when and if this goes south as per the always. It will be excuses, "who could have seen this coming?", and pushing as ALWAYS for the next episode after declaring victory.

I'm also unclear on what basis we have to "do something about" anybody and everybody around the world and why regional powers aren't responsible for their own yards and why we must do the paying?
Time to let the great white father from over the sea act go, quit measuring dicks with Russia over there, let the extraction industry acquire its own assets, gut the bullshit surveillance state at home, put our people first, and rebuild our own decaying country together again and for the 21st century and beyond.
How many of the veterans we have churned out already are living in the fucking streets?

We are incapable or unwilling to mind our own affairs and are run by crooks and nutjobs, it would seem that would undermine our problem solver credentials for a moment but we can't be bothered to reconsider shit, can we?

How many times are simple motherfuckers going to fall for the same bait?

All we really have to figure out is what the next boogieman will be called and how long it will take before we enlist the aid of "moderate allies" from this one in the next crusade in a few years against the new Uber radical terror group in the PNAC bucket list breadbasket or if the new "Eastasia" that we have always been at war with will be opened up yet so we can get a new theme as this middle east one tires out.
HEY! Maybe we can take it to the Soviet bloc so we can get away from the tiresome refrains about blowing up brown people that could sell in the emerging demographics!

Bad? Sure but wrongheaded, arrogant, and stupid are far bigger concerns.

Bad can be redeemed but you can't fix stupid.

Well stated. Those you describe are the liberal version of the Tea Party IMO, just with a LOT fewer numbers.

ISIS' latest act of evil has apparently caused an outrage and turning point.

need to do. ISIS threatens everyone and if they win they will use a means of rule that is as bad as their tactics of war. I also think that it needs to be lead by the UN because we have already demonstrated that we do not do much other than help our corporations make money in wars. As far as I know the UN does not have any corporations.

As to stopping the money flow and volunteers to ISIS - it may mean we have to look at who we are doing business with (ME oil countries) and move faster on alternatives so that the addiction can be broken.

I am not a war strategist. But I hope that this can be ended and not seen as one of the corporate eternal wars we have been having since Korea.

What about the thousands killed all over the world that don't get primetime propaganda treatment?

Your argument is ignorant of the intent and purpose of our defensive military forces. It makes a lie out of the primary justification of President Obama's own justifications for ordering military force against ISIS forces which is primarily based on his unilateral determination that his actions are a defense of our national security. In 2007, when Obama was a Senator, he said that a President doesn't have the unilateral power under the Constitution to authorize any military attack which doesn't involve an actual or imminent threat to United States.

Moreover, President Obama is using, as justification and 'authority' to carry out strikes, an AUMF that he says he wants repealed. In a Sept. 10 speech, the president said, "I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL," either from the 2001 or 2002 AUMF.

This is important, because, as you know well, ISIS has never directly threatened the U.S. or is in any position to pose an imminent threat to the U.S.. Your statement that, 'If the UN won’t do it, anyone willing to do it should,' is based on some sort of heroism and not what our defensive forces are mandated for. As part of a UN effort, there would be an opportunity for the President to go to Congress and ask for approval, but, for now, he's using the dubious argument that ISIS poses a national security threat because of something that might happen in the future; preemptive war.

What 'liberals' have argued (you use that term with such disdain that I wonder just who you're talking about), and what many others have argued about the military strikes ordered, is that they are an authoritarian product of the unitary executive. By conflating the military action against ISIS forces, this President is not only straining credulity, but has defined the risk to national security well outside of our constitution; well outside of his own interpretation of a 'threat' as Senator which narrows it to some future risk, rather than the 'imminent' risk the constitution proscribes for the president's unilateral deployment and use of our military forces.

There are several avenues which the President could legally use to justify use of force against ISIS. One would be the UN security Council consent, which is a huge uncertainty, given Russia and China's veto. I suspect that's why you included the go-it-alone admonition...

Maybe Assad or Iraqis concerned about ISIS in Syria could request assistance, but Syria's unlikely to do so and seeking Iraqi consent bears the risk to military proponents that it could be withdrawn at any time.

The imminent threat argument is fraught with so many uncertainties and weak assumptions that it borders on unlimited authority granted to the CiC to use force.

The claim that ISIS is 'al-Qaeda' is so discredited that not even the administration believes they can sustain operations on that weak thread. Even if this proves true, somehow, the US still has the burden of justifying military operations in sovereign states without approval.

So, we're left with this slippery notion that there's some future threat to the U.S. national security which impels our nation to war against ISIS. That's part and parcel of the Bushian defense of his invasion and occupation of Iraq. It's almost surreal in the way that preemptive military force within that country is now being justified by the same President (and his supporters) who once campaigned against that unconstitutional use of our military.

Compelling Strategic Interest’ — that’s what a Democratic legislator on CNN called the outset of the ‘humanitarian’ buildup of military forces in Iraq this past summer. It was the slippery slope of an ‘expanding mission’ in Iraq; now Congress is to be lined up like sheep to give their vote of approval for continuing the new administration’s old military mission there. We’re just a few Democratic votes away from an enabling complicity.

It’s a fool’s venture, complete with self-perpetuating violence to draw more and more combatants to the cause of opposing America there. We’re in Iraq for good this time. The vast majority of Americans never had to sacrifice a thing for Bush’s wars. Opposing it was to oppose Bush; anti-war was, apparently, to some, just a political abstraction. There was mass slaughter of Iraqis — and American journalists died, as well, in Bush’s Iraq war. Still we called on him to just end it. Not this time around, though. Where’s the anti-war principle? Where are the anti-war values? Where did those voices go? Does the name Michael Kelly mean anything to anyone? Steven Vincent? What about Terence Lloyd? Paul Douglas? Or even José Couso? Look these journalists’ names up sometime.

In the face of the relative quiet against this administration’s warring in Iraq, ‘antiwar’ seems now like a game some played against Bush. Most of the anti-war sentiment is drowned out with shallow appeals to support this Democratic president in one ‘humanitarian’ exercise of our military after the next. Supporters of this new mission in Iraq are either hopelessly naive and clueless about the consequences of this action or they’re complicit with every nod of approval and every cheer they make for military strikes. We’re never going to leave Iraq this time around. There’s ALWAYS going to be some atrocity which draws the ignorant and the zealous in and has them cheering in approval for more. That’s how war goes. Learn it, because we’re going to have to live with it.

It’s the terrorists’ design — it was the bin-Laden gang’s design — get the U.S. close enough so they can zero in on us and get on with their jihad, their holy war against the ‘Great Satan.’ They’ve told us this; our government and military knew this going in. What doesn’t seem to be understood by progressives who were rightly concerned about the safety of the Kurdish civilians and other refugees fleeing the ISIS forces’ terror attacks is that the U.S. military assaults in the region — our country’s military presence and activities — are ultimately counterproductive to the goals of eliminating any threat that comes from the fundamentalist groups fomenting violence in Iraq or anywhere else, for that matter.

Opposition to U.S. military action in Iraq goes deeper than just advocating non-violence, which is likely not the solution to ISIS. It’s an opposition to exactly the same ‘dumb-war’ behavior that President Obama correctly described early in his presidency. It’s the misguided notion that the U.S. is indispensable in these matters. It’s the twisted logic that ‘we broke it,’ therefore, we have to fix it. Except, fixing it means to this administration and military — as it meant to the Bush administration and military — fomenting even more violence in the vain and hopeless aim of ending it.

It’s not a matter of just leaving people to die, as many describe the position of opponents of U.S. military intervention. Other nations are more suited to help them and we should use our energy and whatever influence we have to encourage them. The U.S. military isn’t a benevolent entity; it’s a self-serving, pernicious one whose ambitions and goals have everything to do with the preservation and projection of American power and influence and almost nothing to do with the altruistic endeavors they use to justify getting their military foot in the door. It’s about the realization that our country, having already broken Iraq with our destabilizing, destructive, and opportunistic war waged for greed and petty political purposes, can scarcely hope to repair it using the same destabilizing and destructive violence.

As Bush’s own spy agencies correctly cautioned in their intelligence estimate, our military activity in Iraq had the effect of fostering and fueling even more individuals bent on violent resistance to U.S., our allies, and our interests, than they were able to put down. The intelligence report, completed in April 2006, was the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence agencies since the Iraq war had begun. It represented a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,” it asserted that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, had metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cited the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

It should be no surprise at all to see the report last year, from this current President’s intelligence agencies that our military presence and activity in Iraq — however altruistic the mission — is having the exact same effect of drawing more individuals looking to do battle with our nation, from around the globe, to rally to this emerging insurgent group’s deadly cause.

“U.S. spy agencies have begun to see groups of fighters abandoning al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen and Africa to join the rival Islamist organization that has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and been targeted in American airstrikes,” U.S. officials said in August

The military isn’t somehow caught off-guard by the horrible violence springing up from these Islamic combatants. Defeating them is a delusion the military has had since they first crafted their ‘evil axis’ patter to jazz Americans into letting them try their new weapons out, since they first worked Americans up into letting them explode their bombs on ‘evil ones’ and ‘enemies.’

Is there any more convincing measure of the folly of supporting this than the very fact that nothing our forces have done so far has caused the military to assert that we’re making any progress at all in putting down what they first called a “rag-tag handful of insurgents?” Don’t tell me that more troops are the answer, that more bombings is the answer. Did a full scale occupation under Bush protect and defend civilians there any better? Did we miss the horror of civilian killings under Bush’s occupying troops under Bush, all with orders to attack and kill opponents at will? Did we miss the Iraqi family members who lined the river every day to watch the steady flow of dead and bloated bodies in the sad and awful expectation that they could identify one as their own kin? Is there any more proof of the utter ignorance of a unilateral, escalated U.S. deployment than the virtual silence from the vast majority of the former ‘coalition of willing’ partners in our opportunistic imperialism?

Some people are convinced the U.S. can wage limited war … just like the President was convinced in Afghanistan that if he split the difference between what his Bush hawks nested in the Pentagon were advocating and his delusion that his own political instinct is left of center that he’d produce a moderate war. He ended up presiding over the killing of more of our troops defending the politics of Karzai than Bush lost exacting revenge for 9-11. 575 US troops died in Afghanistan during the Bush presidency. Over 1500 US troops died there under Pres. Obama. That’s a sad and disturbing legacy for a president who was elected to office proclaiming his aversion to ‘dumb wars.’

Don’t give me guff about not caring about the violence perpetrated from these Iraqi insurgents. There is no amount of troops, airstrikes, or any other attacks which will end the cycle of violence. All we can end is our ignorant and gullible part in it. Yes, I’ve heard the terrorists’ cynical demands for the U.S. to stop the airstrikes. Yet, like any hostage taker, there isn’t any regard at all for the human lives that they lure into their web of violence.

They don’t want us to stop. They never want us to stop warring there. Iraq is the holy caliphate; the land where they fight Americans for their delusions of blessed victory over the infidels. We’re just targets in Iraq now and our politicians will supply all the troops and money as the terrorists provide the atrocities for pretext. We never learn. All of the promises to stay away from ‘dumb wars’ and nonsense about ‘just war’ were either ignorant or a deception. Take your pick. We should never have returned troops to Iraq. The hawks are dupes for the combatants’ violent bait. We should know better, but I can see that we don’t. Anytime folks are ready to stand up and say ‘enough’ to this ‘dumb’ warring, I’ll be here to lend my voice. There no such thing as limited strikes, limited war. We’re going to find out the hard way.

It's not. Very simply.

...arguing that there's a difference.

Same dubious nonsense about a 'threat' to the US used to justify military force. Same disregard for the unitary exercise of military force by the Executive. Same 'go it alone' heroism that mirrors Bush's own swaggering militarism. Same assumption that the U.S. is indispensable. Same delusion about the effectiveness and efficacy of U.S. military force across sovereign borders. Same disregard for the sovereignty of these nations. Same conflating of the risk to the U.S. from terrorists.

Superficial? Insulting demagoguery from you in defense of a weak, Bushian interventionist argument for preemptive war. This is very familiar territory.

...that's your response? Good luck with that.

You haven't read or responded to anything I wrote here. You're arguing with the delusions and antipathies you have with 'liberals' in your own self-important head.

...how very brave and noble of you to advocate committing the U.S. to more military folly. Don't act surprised when the product and consequences of all of that militarism turns out to resemble all of the rest of the self-aggrandizing heroism over our nation's interventionist history. I'll be waiting for you to take ownership of that.

Lots of things might 'justify' a military response, but a military response might still be completely impractical and unlikely to improve the situation. Things like 'going to war with ISIS', for instance. We've literally just watched a ten year demonstration of why declaring war on an idea doesn't work.

do you consider 'justified', and which weren't?

Is the blowback from these interventions justified?

Why do you think it is 'liberal' to believe the US is not exempt from the causality of which you speak?

We had to go into Iraq to get the WMD.

We had to go into Libya to help the people in Benghazi.

We supported the rebels who wanted to overthrow Assad. Now we have to go in to deal with those same rebels.

...always with the underlying implication that our own nation's security is threatened, somehow. It's imperialism, pure and simple; the notion of an 'indispensable nation'. We've become 'indispensable' in fueling and fostering more terrorists around the globe than we're able to put down with the weapons and the military forces we fling around like they're some macho extension of our manhood.

from Peter Van Buren:

"Washington’s post-9/11 fantasy has always been that military power -- whether at the level of full-scale invasions or “surgical” drone strikes -- can change the geopolitical landscape in predictable ways. In fact, the only certainty is more death. Everything else, as the last 13 years have made clear, is up for grabs, and in ways Washington is guaranteed not to expect."

Very nicely put bigtree. Especially linking militarism with conquering sexuality.

This time in particular it is exactly the same as it has been from the very beginning of this leg of the war for corruption and profits that has been running virtually non stop since WWII under various guises.
In this particular mass delusion it is that we must confront radical, fundamentalist terrorist that threaten civilization and will stoop to any evil act to do so we must fight them over there now so we don't have to fight them here later and while we are at it of course (because we are fucking the shiznite, biatch!) to make safe the area for decent people who we will kill by the thousands to save. Whether we are going to usher in freedom and democracy or just bring peace and stability is up to the discretion of the pitch person.

All that really happens is the name for the shadowy enemy changes (Taliban, Qaddafi, Al Queda, ISIL, Assad, ISIS, Saddam, Axis of Evil, random bastards under some evil fuck in Yemen...what difference does it make, right?

Just remember SUPER DUPER DOUBLE EVIL!!1!1! LIKE NAZIS! NEW HITLER!

Otherwise it is good old stoking emotions with babies thrown from incubators, gassed his own people, smoldering ruins, beheadings, genital mutilation, girls beaten for going to school, humanitarian crisis, mass graves, whatever it takes to stir the emotions even if we had previously officially approved the actions and provided the weapons in the case of "he gassed his own people!" one of the more egregious, absurd, and effective bullshit whips in history.

You guys want another bite of the apple? I'm sure you can band together and organize an effort to hire and throw in with mercenary agency to tackle the problem.
Please don't mind us as we just for show mind you , declare you to be rogue vigilantes and of course charge, jail, and confiscate to keep up appearances.

If everything works out like you claim and peace breaks out and no new cycle is generated then full pardons and generous reimbursement and compensation for your dogged patriotism, supreme courage, outstanding moral fiber, ultimate conviction, and far seeing vision.

We love the "free market" so fucking much then let's have some free market war.
If you want a war other than defense of the country then band together to share the risks and to reap the rewards of your unflappable fortitude and righteousness!

and I could buy Microsoft with the change in my unicorn leather sofa.

I don't know that it's a good case for preemptive war, but please be clear that that is what you're selling. ISIS is in the business of killing, sure. But war? Really? A war in which our civilian "collateral damage" may outnumber ISIS' targeted murders?

I would at least prefer that the UN made that call. I'm not in a hurry for a larger war, particularly a US-led one.

answer/response is "Nothing new under the Sun." Solomon

It's not that complicated. We can make it sound so, but it's not. The ship of eternal war for King of the Mountain status has already sailed and we'd rather be at the stern than down in the hold.

Seems like I have to drag this out more often lately...being the Liberal Know Nothing that I am...LOL.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

But William Kristol will endorse it.

By definition you cannot reason with armed psychotics, especially those hopped-up on the irrationality of religulous idiocy.

One thing we crave, especially when our ideologies come into play, is certainty. We must do A or B.

With ISIS, I don't know. Will this regional cancer spread? Or, will the neighbors finally declare enough and confront this threat? There is little doubt we played a significant role in creating ISIS. Do we have a responsibility to go in and restore balance? What does balance look like? Would "doing something" result in a better regional environment, or does something worse take its place?

My emotional impulse is to leave alone - for now. To see how the regional powers confront this medieval group. To give current strategies time to resolve. I admit, by adopting this strategy, I am condemning the locals to horrors. That has to be acknowledged. But sometimes we're given the choice of horrors - do they want us to inflict the horror of war or will ISIS's horror move the people of the Middle East to act?

I don't know. I wish I had more certainty, but I don't.

I want the people of the Middle East to be more self-determinative, but how long do we wait before we declare that such a thing is not materializing with enough alacrity?

the kind of rhetoric that enables the warmongering segment of our society to do what they always want to do; go to war. We've seen repeatedly now that it does not improve things-- just the opposite in fact.

Before the Iraq invasion, there was no shortage of Middle East and geopolitical experts warning of the inevitable rise of a group like ISIS once the secular dictator Hussein was removed. Attempts to install a more US business-friendly Hussein didn't work. So here we are. There is no short term solution, and certainly no military solution.

The only sane thing we can do is start taking the long view; push alternative energy sources, disentangle ourselves from the Middle East altogether, and leave them to their own devices. If they want to live in a closed-off, medieval society, fine.

I've seen you described as a "Democratic strategist" on FOX television.



Doesn't say, "Liberal." BTW: Are you paid by either FOX or the Party?

at Fox's Blog page. http://insider.foxnews.com/tag/steve-leser

On this issue, he appears to be playing a minor key on the Fox News Wurlitzer.

This from his his author's bio at Oped News:

http://www.opednews.com/author/author75.html

The reason I ask is that Steven has expressed positions I find anti-liberal or illiberal. These include issues and persons regarding wars without end, Freedom of the Press, and CIA/NSA domestic spying. Whether in the name of national security or segment ratings, I do not believe a person can call himself a "Liberal Democrat" and consistently support the positions of government -- especially in regards to the secret offices of government -- over that of the individual.

the viewpoint of a Democrat and Liberal on that. Happened to be there.

Glad I got the opportunity. Again, it doesnt fit your desired interpretation

your commentary?

Sincere request. I'm just curious.

Not that curious about it.

You might want to look into yourself, though.

But whatever.

Here's what deutsey does. Tells the Truth:

Smells like coup spirit

By Dwayne Eutsey

April 27, 2001-Thanks to the investigative reporting of journalists such
as Greg Palast, more evidence of a coordinated effort to disenfranchise
tens of thousands of registered voters (mostly African American) is
surfacing in Florida. When these reports are considered within the context
of police roadblocks, cases of intimidation, and possible large-scale
voter fraud and ballot tampering, fears of an orchestrated dirty election
become more substantiated.

There is another aspect of the 2000 election in Florida that remains
largely untouched, however: the possibility of a domestic covert
intelligence operation designed to make certain that America didn't go
Democratic "due to the irresponsibility of its own people," to paraphrase
Henry Kissinger's remark concerning overthrowing the democratically
elected government in Chile.

Perhaps the possibility of such an operation in the US is too far-fetched
to take seriously, or perhaps there isn't enough evidence to proceed with
documenting such suspicions. Unfortunately, history proves that the
former assumption is naive (Watergate, Iran-Contra, and documented CIA
activities against US citizens come immediately to mind). Regarding
evidence, it's the nature of the covert beast to leave no fingerprints and
smoking guns behind (unless you're setting up a patsy). However, if you
can't find a corpse laying around, the stench in the air can often reveal,
nonetheless, that a murder victim's body is covered up somewhere nearby.

What follows here is not an expose of how a CIA-backed coup in Florida
helped kill the democratic process in November. It is an effort, however,
to draw attention to the disturbing stink surrounding events in the 2000
election that are similar to known CIA actions that thwarted democracy in
other countries, namely Guatemala in the 1950s and Chile in 1973. To
avoid the appearance of "conspiracy theorizing" on my part, I've limited
the information presented here to what can be verified. I have also
limited the focus of this survey to very broad similarities. Many others
connections exist and warrant further investigation (such as claims that
former CIA/FBI agent Charles Kane, who was involved in possible absentee
ballot tampering in Florida, played a role in the Bay of Pigs invasion and
CIA coups and dirty tricks around the world. He allegedly retired in the
mid-'70s and would have been employed during the Agency's heyday of covert
operations).

Hopefully, this general overview will help prompt others to conduct a more
thorough look into murky activities that, taken as a whole, suggest the
spirit of CIA-Coups-Past may have paid an unwelcome visit last November to
Florida.

Historical Background

By placing these facts within the larger historical context of CIA coup
activity, many of the baffling events transpiring in Florida last year
begin to make some sense. The same players (CIA, powerful corporations,
rightwing militarists), the same motives (preserving economic/political
power), and even the same tactics (armed violence, fortunately, being one
exception) begin to emerge that suggest some unpleasant connections among
them.

For easier comparison, I break down these similarities according to coup
patterns in Guatemala, Chile, and Florida. Unless otherwise noted, the
information here is from David Halberstam's excellent book, The Fifties,
and from the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with
Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Report).

Guatemala: Prior to the legitimate election of Jacobo Arbenz to the
presidency in the early '50s, United Fruit Company controls most of the
country's land, economy, and politics. The land reform policies that
Arbenz wants to implement, which would redistribute United
Fruit-controlled land to Guatemalans, threaten United Fruit's economic
interests and political power in the region. United Fruit has close ties
to powerful figures in America, including Allen Dulles (Director of the
CIA) and his brother Foster (Secretary of State). The Dulles brothers and
others portray Arbenz as a communist threat and convince President
Eisenhower that a coup is in America's best interest.

Chile: Despite CIA covert efforts to defeat him, socialist Salvador
Allende is elected as president in 1970. His plan to nationalize Chilean
industries poses a direct threat to the reactionary Nixon Administration
and the multinational corporate interests it represents. Prior to
Allende's election, the CIA spent years and millions of dollars waging a
propaganda war to maintain a US/corporate-friendly government in Chile.
After the election, the Agency is instrumental in implementing Henry
Kissinger's desire to thwart Allende's policies and in supporting a
military coup being planned by General Augusto Pinochet.

Florida: Strategically important in the CIA's covert war against Cuba
(and other troublespots throughout Central and South America), Florida has
been home to CIA mercenary training camps since at least the '50s (such as
one in Opa-Locka).

There is also an interesting Bush connection to Florida (apart from Jeb
Bush holding the state's governorship). According to a report in The
Nation, days after the Kennedy assassination in 1963 a memo from J. Edgar
Hoover stated that a "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency"
had been briefed regarding the reaction of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in
Miami to the murder. Although George H.W. Bush claims the name he shares
with the "Mr. George Bush of the CIA" is coincidental, a source for the
story observed: "I know [Bush] was involved in the Caribbean. I know he
was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination.
There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move
against Castro and attempt to blame it on the CIA." (see Joseph McBride,
"'George Bush,' CIA Operative," The Nation, July 16/23, 1988, p. 42).

The Players

What follows is a very general review of similar interests and
organizations involved in some manner in Guatemala, Chile, and Florida.

Guatemala:

CIA: Director Allen Dulles is a key player in organizing the coup.

Multinational: United Fruit Company is known as "el pulpo" ("the
octopus&quot because of its pervasive influence over so many facets of the
country.

Rightwing Militarists Takeover: A reactionary military junta is installed
after the coup, fronted by the CIA-selected Carlos Enrique Castillo Armas.
The junta is responsible for the mass murder of dissidents and years of
brutal repression.

Chile:

CIA: For a detailed analysis of widespread US covert activities in Chile,
see the Church Report.

Multinationals: "In addition to providing information and cover to the
CIA, multinational corporations also participated in covert attempts to
influence Chilean politics." Church Report. Among the corporations
actively opposed to Allende's election and his socialist experiment were
ITT, Pepsi-Cola, and the Chase Manhattan Bank.

Rightwing Militarists Takeover: With CIA support and the blessings of the
Nixon Administration, General Augusto Pinochet establishes a brutal and
reactionary military junta after the coup. As in Guatemala, the junta is
repressive and responsible for the mass murder of dissidents (including
Americans Charles Horman and Frank Terrugi, both of whom were tortured and
executed. According to a US State Department memo dated August 25, 1976,
the CIA "may have played an unfortunate part" in both deaths. See
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/19991008/01-04.htm).

Florida:

CIA: At least one "former" CIA operative (Charles Kane) is implicated in
shady activities during the Florida election. The attorney for those
investigating Kane's involvement in tampering with absentee ballots said
Kane's efforts were part of a "sinister underground conspiracy." ("Florida
Official Admits Helping GOP," Associated Press, December 7, 2000).

Multinationals: Oil, insurance, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, etc., all have
concerns about a Gore presidency and its potential for regulatory
activism. These corporations are eager to bring "business special
interests into politics so they can take over the regulatory bodies of
government and regulate themselves. ("America in the Grip of Bush's 'Iron
Triangle,'" The Observer, December 3, 2000).

Rightwing Militarists Takeover: The Bush Administration has established
"itself as the most brazenly rightwing of modern times. As the ecstatic
head of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation enthuses, the new crowd
are 'more Reaganite than the Reagan administration.'" (The Guardian,
April 25, 2001). Among the appointments Bush has made are Cold Warriors
(e.g., Donald Rumsfield), old Iran/Contra characters and intelligence
operatives (e.g., John Negroponte and Otto Reich; see The Nation, May 7,
2001: "Lie to the Media, Get a Job," by Eric Alterman).

Tactics

Media Manipulation/Reality Distortion

Guatemala: CIA "deftly created a fictional war over the airwaves, one in
which the government troops faltered and refused to fight and in which the
liberation troops were relentlessly moving toward Guatemala City."
Halberstam

Chile: "Press placements [by the CIA] were attractive because each
placement might produce a multiplier effect, being picked up and replayed
by media outlets other than the one in which it originally came out."
Church Report

Florida: John Ellis, Bush's first cousin, at the rightwing Fox News
decides to declare the state for Bush after 2 a.m., causing the other
networks to do likewise, creating the lasting (and false) impression that
Bush won the election.

Press Collusion

Guatemala: " . . . one crucial ingredient left for the success of the coup
. . . was the cooperation, voluntary and involuntary, of the American
press. This meant it was necessary for the press corps to tell the public
that the coup was the work of an indigenous Guatemalan force." Halberstam

Practically all American reporters cooperate, with the exception of NYT
reporter Sydney Gruson. After CIA director Allen Dulles puts pressure on
the Times, Gruson is removed from covering Guatemala. "It was an important
moment," writes Halberstam, "a warning to the paper's top executives about
the potential difference between the agenda of the secret government and
that of serious journalism."

Chile: Excerpts from the Church Report . . ."The most common form of a
propaganda project is simply the development of 'assets' in media
organizations who can place articles or be asked to write them."
"According to CIA documents, the Time correspondent in Chile apparently
had accepted Allende's protestations of moderation and constitutionality
at face value. Briefings requested by Time and provided by the CIA in
Washington resulted in a change in the basic thrust of the Time story on
Allende's September 4 victory and in the timing of that story." "According
to the CIA, partial returns showed that 726 articles, broadcasts,
editorials, and similar items directly resulted from Agency activity. The
Agency had no way to measure the scope of the multiplier effect . . . but
concluded that its contribution was both substantial and significant."

Florida: After Election Day, airwaves are saturated with rightwing
commentators, such as Ann Coulter, accusing Gore of being a "nutcase" who
is trying to steal an election that was, at the very least, in dispute; at
the most, it was a victory for Gore. (See "GOP Won by Planting Seeds of
Deception, by Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, December 14, 2000).

Lewis Lapham of Harper's noted that the "poisonous language" and
"paranoid" arguments being aired at the time were mostly coming from
rightwingers (although the Democrats were not free from "unctuous
statement, rank hypocrisy, and bitter diatribe.&quot Still, when it came to
rancor and speciousness, he "didn't find the same sort of stupidity on the
Democratic side of the dispute."

A sidenote on the Press and the CIA: There are a number of articles
exposing the connections between the US media and the CIA. The most
famous expose was Carl Bernstein's "The CIA and the Media" in the October
20, 1977 issue of Rolling Stone. In it, Bernstein reveals the cooperation
during the '50s and '60s between major US media outlets and the
intelligence community, including, CBS, New York Times, Time, the Miami
Herald, and hundreds of others. The NY Times recently reported,
ironically enough, that the CIA has included news wire services (the now
Moonie-owned UPI, for example) as part of its "regular propaganda
apparatus;" this apparatus also included "Miami exile contacts with
Florida papers."

Although this report is based on a CIA document from the early '60s, it
was also reported this year (or underreported) that US Army psychological
operations personnel (responsible for spreading propaganda) were placed at
CNN's TV, radio, and satellite bureaus during the Kosovo war. (From a
report by Alexander Cockburn in Counterpunch, cited among AlterNet's Top
Ten Censored Stories of 2000).

Staging "Spontaneous" Revolts/Protests

Guatemala: CIA creates the "rebel army" that is supposed to be an
indigenous uprising. "One of the CIA's main responsibilities was to keep
American journalists out of the area lest they find out how pathetic
Castillo Armas's army really was." Halberstam

Chile: "The CIA was directed to undertake an effort to promote a military
coup in Chile to prevent the accession to power of Salvador Allende."
(This particular coup fell apart). Church Report.

Florida: Republican operatives are bussed into Miami in a GOP-orchestrated
campaign to shut down the recount effort and intimidate (and even
physically assault) Democratic election officials.

Targeting Special Groups for Propaganda

Chile: "The covert propaganda efforts in Chile also included 'black'
propaganda-material falsely purporting to be the product of a particular
individual or group . . . the CIA used 'black' propaganda to sow discord
between the Communists and the Socialists and between the national labor
confederation and the Chilean Communist Party." Church Report

Florida: African Americans received calls the weekend before the election
from a speaker who falsely claimed to be with the NAACP, asking them to
vote for Bush. (Midwest Today, December 2000: "Scary Facts About the
Florida Vote," by Larry Jordan).

Conclusion

Where does mere coincidence end and meaningful patterns begin? Even if
the events in Florida listed here (along with the more detailed reports
being filed by investigative journalists) are removed from the context of
covert actions, it is easy to conclude that something profoundly
disturbing happened in the previous election.

Reviewing the increasing amount of evidence demonstrating just how dirty
the 2000 election was, however, is it so unreasonable to think that those
interests whose hands remain sullied from Florida would have sunk one
notch lower into the murky depths of covert operations? What are the
limits when the objective is to grab power at any cost?

And what will those who seized that power do next time in order to hold on
to it?

SOURCE: http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg66317.html

That does not mean you are a "Fox News Insider"

campaign protecting voter freedom in the city of Philadelphia.

I had been the attorney at the notorious NBP polling station, and I was happy to share my experiences.

On Election Night, Steve was glad and happy his candidate had won, and I was proud to have his show to share my experiences. Want to tell us all about what you did on Election Day, 2012?

Anyone ever recall The Generals ever winning a game?

You guys are so funny. Pathetic, but funny.

Here's a Liberal perspective:

Not saying it's Steve's fault, but there should be more to the Liberal Democrat's side of the story on television. I'd hope he use the opportunity to say, "No" to wars without end and profits without cease, let alone bring up the Fairness Doctrine or the administration's open season on Freedom of the Press.

From what I can tell about you from your writing, you have nothing in common with me or any liberal I know when it comes to matters of war and peace, secret government, and freedom of the press.

Yet, at least from what you've posted on DU, you show time and again to support the position of the government over that of the individual. That's what I mean.

You know, for a "journalist," you really have a lot to learn about the profession.

And it isn't the same thing as actually being a Liberal.

I've never seen him write or say anything liberal. Seems more like a PNAC lover with this OP.

can say that Steve was overjoyed on Election Night 2012.

What did you do to help get the President elected in 2012?

I am a guest on Fox so they do not pay me. I'm also not paid by the party.

All your assumptions and implied accusations are wrong, which is not surprising given that you are wrong on most things you post.

I stand behind what I write. I've got my journals on DU3 and DU2. They're not perfect, but they are representative of what I've posted on DU over the years.

things you post.

Be brave, admit it.

Steven is a pundit at best...tell me again what they are good for? I forget.

my experiences working at the notorious NBP polling station in Philly. I don't know of another 'pundit' willing to discuss voter protection....

What did you do that day to protect the vote?

Every time he gets challenged on something, he does exactly what they do on Foxnews - mock and ridicule the person asking the question. It is pathetic to think he is an actual journalist. Then again, he fits the same mold as Chuck Todd. Why anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.

In fact, I feel the same about all of the few folks attempting to attack me in this subthread.

You're wrong about so many things, it would surprise me if I was one of your favorite pundits.

Thanks for posting this. I am one who completely agrees with this. Seeing the face of the Jordanian Pilot standing in that cage waiting to die horrifically really tipped the scales big time for me. The murder of the Japanese prisoners has started teetering that scale; not that I didn't already believe it necessary for the world to tackle the ISIS situation head-on.

the Saud family did taking over Saudi Arabia. They follow the same idealogy (public executions), has a Hisbah, the works.

Here's the problem. We were there 10 years, ISIS was there the whole time recruiting because of a war. What difference does it to make to the people who is there indiscriminately killing civilians. Take out ISIS, now what about the political reality? Al-Qaeda is in over a dozen countries. I just don't get the urgency when if they took over the land, they'll do the same shit Saudi Arabia's been doing for the past 200 years.

The problem is thinking a use of force resolution will actually solve anything. It will just create more of the same problems and exasperate the political problems. You still have a world class human rights violators in charge & what about the people? Tell them to suck it up because he isn't ISIS? Still they will still want to rebel & will rebel, ISIS came in because of that over there. Al-Maliki brutally oppressing elected Sunni officials & civilians is why you have the northern half of the Iraqi population that doesn't view the new government as legitimate because of A their interests aren't being represented.

Good luck throwing more gas on the fire, its what we're more likely going to do anyway.

On edit - Assad kills journalists too. All sides appear to be doing in the Syrian war. Why? Because they don't want whatever it is to be reported, the focus isn't in the country that he represents, it is because he is a journalist. Why do you think they target humanitarian aid workers? They aren't a threat--they do it because they cut it off, make the population dependent on them. That is key, we should be providing aid to refugees & whoever ISIS--whoever cuts off from, that is a sure-fire way to win people over to your side rather than bombing their living room.

The biggest mistake is for anyone to think the OP is a real journalist. Maybe on Foxnews...

who practice atrocities against others. If ISIS is so bad we must launch all out war then how the fuck is the Kingdom so good that our President must pay homage to them? Is that not legitimizing their atrocities? Is it not a sort of approval for killing gay people and whipping writers and all that good stuff?
These ethics, they are either situational or they are simple endorsements of atrocities by 'approved allies'.

The deep anti gay dogmas of America's right and center religious folks cause them to cheer for the Saudis, and yet they want full war against others for the same sort of shit. Situational ethics are not ethics, they are agenda.
When you make a list of reasons we must make war, that creates another list of things you are saying require no response at all. Kill the gays? Fine, just don't kill a Japanese journalist.
Hearing our leadership preach about their faiths and praise the Saudi kingdom makes me unwilling to support any efforts against 'ISIS' and it makes me feel utterly unwanted in this Party.

And ISIS is thus threatening to expand the domain of people subject to all of their violent and bigoted actions and beliefs.

The most basic thing you can't have countries and groups doing is engaging in unprovoked wars of aggression. If its a group that is murderous and bigoted even more so.

Absolutely agree with you. However, what you write applies to the US as well. Every time that the US engages in military action it engages in an unprovoked war of aggression. The only purpose of these wars is to expand the American Empire. Sometimes US troops are used, sometimes proxies are used, but ISIS is small time compared to the massive aggression of the US.

What other country has over 700 military base all over the world?
What other country spend 60% of its discretionary budget on war while 47% of its citizens are living in poverty or one paycheck away?
What other country dropped 2 nuclear devices to "field test the technology" ?

I will not speak of the genocide committed against the First Peoples of this country, nor will I speak about 400 YEARS OF SLAVERY.

The US must lead by example.

to do their holy wars and conquests for them. It's largely about controlling and reducing competing supply on the world market than actual territorial conquest. They learned that lesson from those who taught them - the British, Dutch and American oil companies. The religious war stuff is largely for public consumption and to keep Wahhabi clerics happy.

If you don't realize that's the way it works, there's no helping you. Perhaps, you really are as simple as your answer above makes you seem.