Dr. Cole - I've seen this exact report on three different "liberal" 'blogs now, and NONE of them mention that Abu Zubaydah was the source of Gerald Posner's explosive claims involving Saudi and Pakistani links to the 9/11 attacks. Why is that? Am I wrong to be suspicious of the timing of this rather spirited defense of Zubaydah considering the very recent focus on US/Saudi relations and those notorious 28 redacted pages? What is going on here? Has Posner been debunked at some point over the past 10 years and I just missed it? Why has the Posner claim been ignored and why is no reporter revisiting it now?
What we've got here is a good old fashioned land grab.
Syria will never get that piece of land back as long as it contains one of the primary sources of the River Jordan.
No matter what the Saudis and the Russians do, won't Iranian oil production, plus the newly-allowed exports from the U.S., still increase global supply and thus drive down prices?
If Turkey does indeed have the right to exercise control over those particular waterways, wouldn't NATO allies be obligated to back Turkey, at least until the legal aspects are cleared up?
Many great points, but one overlooked: it's not so much that American generals don't know how to "win", it's that we haven't fought a war with a clear definition of what "victory" looks like since WW!!.
Two points:
1) You forgot to add "much to their chagrin", because I don't think "making Sanders a better candidate" is their goal.
2) Sanders' platform and policy arguments have long addressed these issues. Arguing now that #BLM's rude behavior sparked this as some sort of "change" on Sanders' part ignores his entire past record.
Question - has Iran, or anyone, ever made this proposal: "We agree to stringent inspections of our nuclear programs if Israel does the same" ? What would be the response if Iran did so? My own opinion is that it would be politically brilliant.
Also, since it seems we're pledged to provide for Israel's defense (I hate it, but that's the sad, infuriating reality of the situation) why don't WE propose building US military bases in Israel instead of just giving them that $3billion in cash every year? We'd have that military presence in the region we so covet, and that way any attack on Israel would really be an attack on us. There'd be no hostile local populace to deal with, so logistics/supply lines/communications/etc wouldn't be subjected to the nightmare scenarios we see so often in Pakistan/Afghanistan as but one example. Off-duty military personnel wouldn't have to worry about being murdered or kidnapped and could spend their own money back into the local economies of Israeli cities if they so chose. Let Israel provide for their own defense, with the US supplementing them not with free no-strings-attached cash payments, but with our OFFICIAL cooperation and presence instead of the UNOFFICIAL manner we see now. In a related note, Israel would also have to pay for their own socialized medicine, education system, legalized abortions/contracteption, and all the other things that are forbidden for American citizens because of our fundamentalist rightwing.
I think it's a brilliant political move as well - if Israel declines, or their AIPAC allies refuse, then they are exposed for what they are - more interested in US taxdollars and their own influence over us than any real defense concerns.
Help me out here - what was the proposed bill which called for the removal of all tax breaks for any US company that outsourced jobs, and how did Hoekstra vote on THAT one?
Question:
Assuming the reports are true, a Saudi bombmaker was also killed in the same airstrike. If that bombmaker had been the intended target and not al-Alwaqi, would we see the same level of outrage? If not for the well-publicized authorization to target al-Alwaqi, if his death were the result of being in the same convoy with targeted non-US-citizen terrorists, would we see the same level of outrage?
How about treason? I'm not being flippant here, but if the arguments against this assassination are based on his US citizenship, then is he not guilty of treason? If he is a citizen, then his very public calls to attack the US fit the definition, and if he's NOT a citizen (no idea if he ever disavowed his US citizenship) then he's just another enemy soldier.
I disagree, Professor Cole.
This is not Bush/Cheney sweeping-up or targeting everyone as "suspected terrorist" even as they prove they don't know the meaning of the word by attacking critics as "sympathizers" and "appeasers".
Every single time this piece of garbage stepped in front of a video camera and called for violent attacks on the US, he forfeited his right to due-process in my opinion. Not one single time did he proclaim his innocence. Not one single time did he say "whoa - you've got the wrong guy!". Instead he reveled in the notoriety and fame with which he was rewarded for his violent rhetoric. He has access and he had a way to communicate with the rest of the world, and not once did he deny the allegations against him.
He got exactly what he deserved and will not be missed.
I'm sure that's part of it, but mostly it's a question of whose oxen are being gored. It's easy to support humiliating and inconveniencing The Other Guy - but when it's you being pulled out of that security line for "enhanced" checks, suddenly it doesn't seem like such a grand idea.
Professor Cole: What do you mean when you mention " a pouch" of PETN?
Could that explain the recent horror story of the colostomy bag/passenger covered in his own urine?
I'm no psychologist, but when I see those old clips of O'Donnell I see someone trying to convince me that she's oh-so-hip-and-open-minded while still banking on her attractiveness to help win the day. Nothing epitomizes this more than the "I might have joined the Hare Krishnas but I liked meatballs too much!" ridiculousness. I remember seeing her on those shows, and she always seemed to be trying just a bit too hard to make me forget about her extremist rightwing message.
"Pay no attention to my radical beliefs - look how cute and adorable I am!"
I doubt it.
First of all, the conservative/Republican "blue hairs" don't watch Bill Maher and those who even know who he is despise him from his days on Politically Incorrect and his movie Religulous. They'll rally around O'Donnell with cries of "the liberal media is out to destroy her!!" - just as they did with Palin.
As for Kerry - pointing-out that the VP of an anti-gay administration has a gay daughter is hardly an attempt to "sink the ticket"
Could it really be a coincidence that this is happening at the exact same time this new Emergency Committee for Israel is making its move and joining the public discourse?
Is Amiri just another "Curveball"?
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
I'm confused - I thought Sheldon Adelson was about as pro-Netanyahu as one could get?
Not sure why you're preaching to a largely liberal and anti-war audience, but sure, okay.
Dr. Cole - I've seen this exact report on three different "liberal" 'blogs now, and NONE of them mention that Abu Zubaydah was the source of Gerald Posner's explosive claims involving Saudi and Pakistani links to the 9/11 attacks. Why is that? Am I wrong to be suspicious of the timing of this rather spirited defense of Zubaydah considering the very recent focus on US/Saudi relations and those notorious 28 redacted pages? What is going on here? Has Posner been debunked at some point over the past 10 years and I just missed it? Why has the Posner claim been ignored and why is no reporter revisiting it now?
What we've got here is a good old fashioned land grab.
Syria will never get that piece of land back as long as it contains one of the primary sources of the River Jordan.
No matter what the Saudis and the Russians do, won't Iranian oil production, plus the newly-allowed exports from the U.S., still increase global supply and thus drive down prices?
If Turkey does indeed have the right to exercise control over those particular waterways, wouldn't NATO allies be obligated to back Turkey, at least until the legal aspects are cleared up?
Sounds like a job for the Warthogs.
Many great points, but one overlooked: it's not so much that American generals don't know how to "win", it's that we haven't fought a war with a clear definition of what "victory" looks like since WW!!.
Two points:
1) You forgot to add "much to their chagrin", because I don't think "making Sanders a better candidate" is their goal.
2) Sanders' platform and policy arguments have long addressed these issues. Arguing now that #BLM's rude behavior sparked this as some sort of "change" on Sanders' part ignores his entire past record.
Question - has Iran, or anyone, ever made this proposal: "We agree to stringent inspections of our nuclear programs if Israel does the same" ? What would be the response if Iran did so? My own opinion is that it would be politically brilliant.
Also, since it seems we're pledged to provide for Israel's defense (I hate it, but that's the sad, infuriating reality of the situation) why don't WE propose building US military bases in Israel instead of just giving them that $3billion in cash every year? We'd have that military presence in the region we so covet, and that way any attack on Israel would really be an attack on us. There'd be no hostile local populace to deal with, so logistics/supply lines/communications/etc wouldn't be subjected to the nightmare scenarios we see so often in Pakistan/Afghanistan as but one example. Off-duty military personnel wouldn't have to worry about being murdered or kidnapped and could spend their own money back into the local economies of Israeli cities if they so chose. Let Israel provide for their own defense, with the US supplementing them not with free no-strings-attached cash payments, but with our OFFICIAL cooperation and presence instead of the UNOFFICIAL manner we see now. In a related note, Israel would also have to pay for their own socialized medicine, education system, legalized abortions/contracteption, and all the other things that are forbidden for American citizens because of our fundamentalist rightwing.
I think it's a brilliant political move as well - if Israel declines, or their AIPAC allies refuse, then they are exposed for what they are - more interested in US taxdollars and their own influence over us than any real defense concerns.
Help me out here - what was the proposed bill which called for the removal of all tax breaks for any US company that outsourced jobs, and how did Hoekstra vote on THAT one?
Question:
Assuming the reports are true, a Saudi bombmaker was also killed in the same airstrike. If that bombmaker had been the intended target and not al-Alwaqi, would we see the same level of outrage? If not for the well-publicized authorization to target al-Alwaqi, if his death were the result of being in the same convoy with targeted non-US-citizen terrorists, would we see the same level of outrage?
How about treason? I'm not being flippant here, but if the arguments against this assassination are based on his US citizenship, then is he not guilty of treason? If he is a citizen, then his very public calls to attack the US fit the definition, and if he's NOT a citizen (no idea if he ever disavowed his US citizenship) then he's just another enemy soldier.
I disagree, Professor Cole.
This is not Bush/Cheney sweeping-up or targeting everyone as "suspected terrorist" even as they prove they don't know the meaning of the word by attacking critics as "sympathizers" and "appeasers".
Every single time this piece of garbage stepped in front of a video camera and called for violent attacks on the US, he forfeited his right to due-process in my opinion. Not one single time did he proclaim his innocence. Not one single time did he say "whoa - you've got the wrong guy!". Instead he reveled in the notoriety and fame with which he was rewarded for his violent rhetoric. He has access and he had a way to communicate with the rest of the world, and not once did he deny the allegations against him.
He got exactly what he deserved and will not be missed.
I'm sure that's part of it, but mostly it's a question of whose oxen are being gored. It's easy to support humiliating and inconveniencing The Other Guy - but when it's you being pulled out of that security line for "enhanced" checks, suddenly it doesn't seem like such a grand idea.
Professor Cole: What do you mean when you mention " a pouch" of PETN?
Could that explain the recent horror story of the colostomy bag/passenger covered in his own urine?
I'm no psychologist, but when I see those old clips of O'Donnell I see someone trying to convince me that she's oh-so-hip-and-open-minded while still banking on her attractiveness to help win the day. Nothing epitomizes this more than the "I might have joined the Hare Krishnas but I liked meatballs too much!" ridiculousness. I remember seeing her on those shows, and she always seemed to be trying just a bit too hard to make me forget about her extremist rightwing message.
"Pay no attention to my radical beliefs - look how cute and adorable I am!"
I doubt it.
First of all, the conservative/Republican "blue hairs" don't watch Bill Maher and those who even know who he is despise him from his days on Politically Incorrect and his movie Religulous. They'll rally around O'Donnell with cries of "the liberal media is out to destroy her!!" - just as they did with Palin.
As for Kerry - pointing-out that the VP of an anti-gay administration has a gay daughter is hardly an attempt to "sink the ticket"
Could it really be a coincidence that this is happening at the exact same time this new Emergency Committee for Israel is making its move and joining the public discourse?
Is Amiri just another "Curveball"?