This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Foreign Policy

  • Port of Olympia emails and military cargo.

    PortZiegler
    It seems that the Port of Olympia might be used for the transpiration of military cargo via emails. This has apparently hit a nerve with a portion of the population in Olympia. Currently the city of Olympia is holding a public discussion on if the military cargo should be allowed to pass through the port. When I first heard this coming back from work I had to do a double take on why this is even up for discussion.

    Denis Langhans of Olympia, who was one of the first to speak Monday, said he was surprised by the “lack of candor and transparency on an issue of real community sensitivity.”

    Walt Jorgensen of Tumwater was one of two men who read The Olympian story to the commission. After he was done, he said the port’s credibility had plummeted to a new low.

    “There’s no other way to say it: Somebody’s been lying to me and I resent it,” he said.

    “Our faith and trust has been violated,” Chris Carson of Olympia added.

    Mike Pelly of Olympia questioned the honesty of how the military shipments discussion has been handled.

    “We want you to act like public servants and not do deals behind our backs,” he told the commission.

    Except that there has to be operational security in these matters. Public knowledge of a convoy route, cargo and delivery time would expose people to unneeded risks. Given the recent attacks on a Marine 10K, it is not far off to say that a another attempt would be realistic. Another reason would be the outcome of the last time military cargo was transported in Port of Olympia in 2007. It is also the current residence of the The Veterans For Peace Rachel Corrie Chapter 109 as well as Coffee Strong, after leaving Lakewood Washington. So it is not surprising to see statements like this.

    Mark Fleming of Olympia urged the commission not to accept military cargo.

    “It’s a visceral issue with me,” he said. “I convinced myself to participate in the Vietnam War, and I urge you not to make the same mistake in 2016.”

    There were supporters who voiced their opinion.

    “I want the port to continue to support the use of our port by the military,” Jon Cushman of Olympia said. “It’s the right thing to do.”

    “The port should be afforded an opportunity to exercise its role as an alternative port,” said Bill Adamson, program manager for the South Sound Military & Communities Partnership.

    Greg Bucove of Olympia also commented on The Olympian story, saying the emails show that Executive Director Galligan is just doing his job.

    But in the end it comes down to this simple fact. If the military needs to use a port to support the many different operations around the world then it is not for the local city to decide if it will happen or not.

    Galligan also said the port is bound by the Shipping Act of 1984, which prevents it from “unreasonably discriminating in the provision of marine terminal services.”

    “Our acceptance of military shipments in no way implies involvement in the making of foreign policy,” he said. “Rather, it demonstrates our commitment to operating a public marine terminal in compliance with all governing regulations.”

    He added: “I understand and appreciate the diverse perspectives our community holds on geopolitical strategies and the use of military force. (But) these are actions and policy decisions well outside the port’s jurisdictional authority.”

  • Rosa Brooks: Veterans Are Not Experts on Foreign Policy

    Rosa Brooks: Veterans Are Not Experts on Foreign Policy

    Chock Block sends us a link to Foreign Policy where some chick, Rosa Brooks, writes “Sorry Folks, Veterans Are Not Necessarily Experts on Foreign Policy“. According to the bio about her, she’s “a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department.” In other words, she’s way smarter than rest of us because she’s sequestered in a think tank with a bunch of other pointy-headed hippies, and she doesn’t like the idea of veterans being asked our opinions on foreign policy.

    I focused on “US Diplomatic History” when I was in college. Much of that study included our wars, there was really very little about diplomacy – like Clauswitz said “war is politics by other means”. No one hates war more than those who have to fight them – so who knows more about pitfalls of bad foreign policy?

    Ms. Brooks disagrees. She’s concerned about the attention that veterans got during the last presidential debate which was sponsored by that broke-dick IAVA and NBC News;

    Some of those service members and vets are smart, thoughtful, and sophisticated about politics, policy, and global affairs. Others are dumb as rocks.

    This is par for the course in any group of millions of Americans: Some know what they’re talking about; others just like to talk. Wearing a uniform — or having once worn a uniform — doesn’t make someone uniquely qualified to evaluate political candidates.

    No question, service members and veterans have a unique personal stake in politicians’ decisions about whether and when to use military force. But having a unique personal stake in these decisions isn’t the same as having unique wisdom.

    Funny, but that’s the way I feel about those in academia who have no real practical experience outside of their cloistered existence inside the ivy-covered walls, whose only personal stake is worrying about that peer review on a paper. Brooks really just doesn’t like the military – she called us a welfare state a while back.

    The generous benefits we give our military reflect the increasingly reflexive esteem in which we hold the armed forces. Despite (or because of) the dwindling number of Americans who serve or have a close relative who serves, support for the military has become America’s civil religion.

    In part, this is because we recognize that with our all-volunteer military, the few truly do make sacrifices for the many. The punishing deployment tempo of the last decade — not to mention the thousands of military personnel killed and wounded — has wreaked havoc on military families and communities, even as most Americans live lives wholly untouched by terrorism and war.

    But this can’t fully account for the disproportionate benefits we bestow on the military. Plenty of other Americans serve the nation in vital ways — consider public school teachers and nurses — and plenty of other Americans, from fishers to fire-fighters, have dangerous jobs. We don’t seem inclined to fling free health care and housing in the direction of teachers or fire-fighters, though.

    She claims to be married to an Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Mouer, but, I’d advise him to sleep with one eye open. She doesn’t like military folks no matter what we do, or what we know. Or maybe she’s just a tiny bit jealous of the fact that our opinions are more valuable to Americans than those of a petty little teacher in a second-rate school.

  • Russia’s Military Gets “Frisky”, Part 5

    Well, looks like Putin decided it was time to give the POTUS the finger yet again.

    Yesterday, a Russian SU-27 “buzzed” a US reconnaissance jet over the Black Sea.  The incident occurred 40 miles from the Russian coast.

    This time, it’s estimated that the Russian aircraft passed within 10 feet of the US aircraft, a Navy P-8 Poseidon.

    The incident occurred while the US SECSTATE, John “Christmas in Cambodia” Kerry, is attempting to negotiate with Russia concerning a cease-fire in Syria.  Gee, you don’t suppose this incident was intentional, and intended to send a message – do you?

    There’s no word on whether the pilot of the Russian aircraft gave the US crew the finger – or mooned them – during the close approach.  But if he had, that would have been apropos.

    Hell, Putin’s been doing that to the current POTUS and his gang of sycophants for years now.  They don’t seem to mind.

    And Lord knows, there haven’t been any consequences for Russia for doing that.

  • More Evidence of Clintoon “Pay for Play”? Sure Looks Like It – Part II

    I’ve written about this subject before (and before, and before).  But it’s the “gift that keeps on giving”.

    Or perhaps that should read that it’s the “corruption that reeks to high heaven”.  Because at first glance, that’s exactly what it looks like.

    We know that Clintoon Foundation donors and/or executives appear to have gotten “preferred access” when it came to personal meetings with a certain SECSTATE between 2009 and early 2013.  But it seems that they may have gotten some other perks, too.

    In particular, it appears that one of those “other perks” in some cases may have been unwarranted diplomatic passports.  Unwarranted, as in “issued to private individuals who do not travel on diplomatic business for the United States”.

    And yeah:  as was the case with preferred access, it looks like Clintoon’s “protégé” Huma Abedin was involved hip-deep in this as well.

    Predictably, Clintoon’s        naive sycophants and/or paid “spin doctors”         supporters have sought to downplay this latest revelation.  They’ve claimed that some of those folks “were actually at times engaged in diplomatic efforts”.

    Yeah, right.  Sure they were.  Just like I’m the freaking King of Siam.

    The Daily Caller has a short article giving a few details; Fox News has a longer one giving more.  Both articles IMO are worthwhile – if disgusting – reading.

    You or I would be in jail by now.

  • “The exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran.”

    The title above is not a quote from some Trump campaign speech, or from some “Right wing” editorial.  Rather, it comes from David Albright.

    Albright’s president of the Institute for Science and International Security.  He’s a former UN weapons inspector.

    He’s also co-author of a report by his institute concerning the US-Iran nuclear agreement.  That report documents numerous “exemptions” the US and its partners granted to Iran so that Iran would not be in violation of the agreement on 16 January of this year.  That was the date at which the agreement required return of Iranian “assets” to begin.

    Or, in other words:  it had to happen so that we could      fund a $400 million cash blackmail payment for the return of some US citizens held hostage by Iran      begin returning Iranian assets frozen after the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran.  And it was necessary not only for that, but so that afterwards we could       continue to give Iran money in the future they’ll use to fund their nuclear program      continue returning assets to Iran in the future.

    Funny, but I don’t recall hearing that Iran had returned our Embassy – or compensated the US for damages relating to its seizure.  But maybe I missed it.

    Reuters has a good article discussing this idiocy.  Since Reuters articles seem to have short on-line lifetimes, I’m also linking to a Fox News article which provides much the same info.

    Yeah, that Iranian nuclear agreement certainly seems to be a manifestly “good deal” – for Iran.  For the US and the rest of the West . . . not so much.

    Coming from this Administration that’s no surprise, though. Given their track record,       this bunch of clueless naive dolts        the current Administration seems so incompetent that I believe they could eff up a wet dream three times before breakfast.

  • The Clintoon “Private” Email Saga Continues . . . .

    Well, Clintoon’s “private” email is in the news again.

    Yeah, so what else is new?  Hell, I’ve written about it so many times now that a Google search of this site for the terms “Clintoon” and “email” turns up more than two pages of previous stories.

    In any case:  a few days ago I wrote that even more previously unreleased Clintoon email had been recovered recently by the FBI.  “Even more”, as in about 50% of the amount previously turned over by Clintoon’s lawyers.

    Supposedly, only non-work-related email wasn’t returned by Clintoon’s lawyers to the State Department 2 years ago.  You know, stuff about yoga, recipes, vacation plans and the like.  But rather obviously that claim now . . . seems suspect.  Highly suspect.

    Anyone wanna guess what I’m about to tell you today?

    Well, that’s actually a trick question; today you might well be wrong if you guessed.  No, there hasn’t been yet another batch of Clintoon “private” email located or recovered.

    However, it seems that some of the newly-recovered emails appear . . . interesting. Some of these new emails appear to be from mid-September 2012.  And among the new stuff around 30 emails – including some from mid-September 2012 – appear to concern something called “Benghazi”.

    Yeah, that Benghazi.  The same Benghazi where 4 Americans died while the Federal government sat around for hours with its thumb firmly inserted, doing nothing.

    I somehow just don’t think the Clintoons were planning a North African yoga vacation or discussing a local restaurant serving “Benghazi couscous” in those mid-September 2012 emails.  And of course all of those newly recovered emails that weren’t previously turned over were deleted “by accident” – not to cover up anything.

    Oh, and it also appears that Clintoon continued to send and/or receive classified email at that “private” account months after she left the State Department.

    Damn.  You or I would be in jail by now.

     

  • Yet Another Update About That “Private” Email . . . .

    Well, this should be no surprise.  Remember the other day that I mentioned the release of 725 pages of email from Clintoon confidante Huma Abedin?

    Well, they were indeed released.  Sorta

    I say “sorta” because it appears that roughly 250 pages “released” – or over 1/3 of the total – were heavily redacted.  Heavily redacted, as in “100%”.

    Why, you ask?  Good question.

    But maybe we can discern a few possibilities by looking at the 7 July exchange between the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Mr. Charles McCollough, IG for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, concerning some of the Clintoon “private email” that the ODNI IG had been asked to review prior to its release to Congress.  Here’s a quote from that exchange, with a bit of emphasis added.

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, generated the response by asking McCullough if he could provide the committee, in a secure format, the classified emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server.

    “I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those,” McCullough explained. “They are characterizing them as OrCon, ‘originator control,’ so I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them.”

    “Which agency?” Chaffetz interjected.

    “I can’t say that in an open hearing sir,” McCullough replied.

    . . . .

    “This is the segment of emails that I had to have people in my office read-in to particular programs to even see these emails,” McCullough responded. “We didn’t posses the required clearances.”

    Hmm.  Remember:  McCullough and his office are the freaking IG for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.  Those individuals are routinely cleared for TS-compartmented access.  Yet at first they didn’t have the requisite clearances to view the material.

    Remember, this is material that was formerly stored on Clintoon’s unsecured “private” email server.  That system was NOT authorized to store anything classified – or anything that was even Sensitive But Unclassified.  It wasn’t supposed to be storing official government information at all.  But it was.

    Nevertheless, two days prior to that exchange between McCullough and Chaffetz, FBI Director James Comey publicly declared that charges were “not appropriate”.  And even in light of the above later relevation by the IG for ODNI, the FBI has declined to prosecute anyone for anything related to this matter since that announcement.

    Wonderful.  Just freaking wonderful.

    Sheesh.  IMO this photo sums up the Administration’s (and Clintoon’s)      obviously and transparently absurd “party line”       “official position” concerning this whole convoluted mess perfectly.

     

    But you wanna hear the really sad part? I’m not sure she’s any less intelligent or competent than the current Occupant, 1600 Penn Ave, Wash DC.

    Oh, and in other news:  Clintoon apparently has a new supporter.  The California Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, Will Quigg, has endorsed her.  Further, he’s also publicly announced that Klan members have donated over $20,000 to her campaign this year.

    I’m guessing those donations haven’t been returned, either – and I’m guessing there’s a good chance they won’t be.  After all, money is money.  And the Clintoon Foundation certainly isn’t choosy regarding those from which it accepts cash.

     

     

  • More Evidence of Clintoon “Pay-for-Play”? Sure Looks Like It.

    I’ve written before about the Clintoon Foundation’s “interesting” financial dealings.  In fact, I’ve observed – on more than one occasion – that appearances indicate there could well be a “pay for play” component to the Clintoon Foundation’s dealings while Clintoon was SECSTATE.

    Well the news today to me seems, as Alice said in Wonderland might have put it, “Curioser and curioser”.

    While Clintoon was SECSTATE, it turns out her chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills was in reasonably frequent contact with top executives at the Clintoon Foundaton.  “Reasonably frequent” here translates to 148 phone messages for Mills from senior Clintoon Foundation executives over a 2 –year period (2010-2012).  State Department phone logs show that no other private individual or concern came anywhere close in terms of the number of contacts with Mills over this period.

    Further, regarding Mills there’s also this:

    Last week, the State Department acknowledged that in June 2012, Mills spent two days traveling to New York to interview job applicants at the foundation. The State Department said Mills “volunteered” to do so, but neither the department nor a spokesman for the Clinton presidential campaign, nor Mills’s attorney, would say whether Mills used annual leave or unpaid days to perform that work – or whether it was done on the taxpayers’ time.

    If that was done while Mills was “on the clock” as a Federal employee, that means it was done on taxpayer’s nickle.  If so, yeah – IMO that’s a serious problem on multiple levels.  Ditto if taxpayers funded Mills’ travel.

    Moreover, some additional and previously unreleased email involving Clintoon confidante and protégé Huma Abedin has also come to light.  What it contains is similarly quite disturbing.

    Specifically, the public interest group Judicial Watch obtained a number of Abedin’s emails recently.  Collectively, these emails show a pattern of high-dollar donors to the Clintoon Foundation receiving expedited access to the SECSTATE.  Abedin appears to have been instrumental in coordinating that expedited access.

    . . . the messages show Clinton aide Huma Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state.” The documents include exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department.

    You can view the 725 pages of Abedin email recently released by Judicial Watch here if you like.

    IMO, that’s disturbing as hell.  It appears to bolster the theory that Clintoon was engaging in “quid quo pro” trading of official influence (as SECSTATE) for contributions to the Clintoon foundation.

    And that’s not all, either.  It appears a total of over 150 non-government officials representing private concerns met with Clintoon while she was SECSTATE.  The exact number appears to have been 154.

    So, how many of those private individuals have perchance “donated” to the Clintoon Foundation?  Glad you asked.

    Of those 154 private individuals, 85 – or over 55% of those individuals representing private concerns – also “dontated” to the Clintoon Foundation.  At least 40 of those individuals – or nearly 26% –“donated” in excess of $100k.  And 20 of them – or roughly 13% – “dontated” $1M or more.

    That makes the lower limit for those “dontations” somewhere north of $22M.  It’s estimated that the total “dontated” could be over $150M.

    One extreme case was that of the the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had previously contributed $32M to the Clintoon Foundation for a “scholarship fund”.  That individual was given virtually immediate access to Clintoon in terms of getting a personal meeting with her after contacting Abedin.

    After seeing all of that, well, it’s kinda hard to avoid the conclusion that there’s a damn good chance that “pay for play” is indeed exactly what was going on.  Circumstantial?  Yeah, it is. But here, the circumstances seem persuasive as hell.

    Even so, Clintoon has her       weak-minded sycophants incapable of facing ugly reality      defenders.     Predictably, both Clintoon and her defenders say that occurrences such as these are “coincidental”.

    Yeah, right.  And Al Capone was just a savvy businessman in Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, too.

    Clintoon and her cronies might want to remember one thing, though.  Capone didn’t go to jail for racketeering.

    He ended up in prison because investigators “followed the money”.

     

    (Edited to Add:  here’s an article from Yahoo News giving more details.  I don’t recommend you read it immediately after eating.)

     

    Author’s Note:  new or occasional readers may notice the spelling “Clintoon” and assume that is a typographical error.  It is not.  That is intentional.

    In behavior, both famous Clintoons are IMO exemplars of the stereotypical corrupt politician – and are such compelling exemplars that they appear to be near-cartoonish representations of same.  (However, though each is IMO thoroughly corrupted they do appear to be corrupted in different ways.)  Thus, referring to them as “Clintoons” simply seems apropos.