Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to PunchyPossum's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

On the same day retiring Sen. Tom Harkin's Democratic Steak Fry became a de facto Hillary Clinton campaign rally, another group of Iowa progressives gathered in a church basement to hear from a potential presidential candidate Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders criticized the Democratic Party for moving from the center-left to the center, even while the GOP moved to the far-right. "There are a lot of great Democrats, I work with them," he said. "But I think it's fair to say that average people do not perceive that the Democratic Party standing up for the working people of this country." read more

Monday, September 15, 2014

The British prime minister and media should stop legitimizing the terror group rampaging through Syria and Iraq by describing it as Islamic State, according to a coalition of imams and organizations representing British muslims. Six senior Islamic scholars endorsed the fatwa last month, describing Britons allied to Islamic State (ISIS) cells as "heretics" and prohibiting would-be jihadists from joining the "oppressive and tyrannical" group in Iraq and Syria. It is feared that as many as 500 Britons have traveled to Syria or Iraq since 2011 to join the group and its affiliates. In a letter seen by the Observer, the signatories add: "We believe that it would send a powerful message in Britain and around the world if you would join us, as our prime minister, in leading a national debate to seek a suitable alternative way to refer to this group and further challenge its legitimacy and influence.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

A retired United Methodist minister set himself on fire to protest lingering racism in his hometown of Grand Saline, Texas, later dying in a Dallas hospital of his injuries. The Rev. Charles Moore, 79, wrote in a two-page letter left for the authorities, "I would much prefer to go on living and enjoy my beloved wife and grandchildren and others. But I have come to believe that only my self-immolation will get the attention of anybody and perhaps inspire some to higher service." Moore drove to Grand Saline from his home in Allen on June 23, pulled into a Dollar General parking lot, doused himself with gasoline and set it on fire. read more


Bill Clinton has said that doing nothing during the Rwandan genocide was his greatest regret as president. But such actions require "boots on the ground" -- and nobody on the left or right is advocating a full-scale, boots-on-the ground invasion of Iraq or Syria. Air power alone, meanwhile, has rarely stopped a genocide, and the groups we've paid over the years to act as our proxies have usually ended up conducting ethnic cleansings of their own. Furthermore, we have not used sanctions to discourage the states, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that are supporting ISIS; indeed we haven't even explored that possibility, at least not publicly. Either stopping genocide isn't our real objective -- whether it should be is a different discussion -- or we're applying the wrong set of tools to the problem.

With all the money we have spent -- on military invasions, bombs, carrier-group deployments, handouts to corrupt Afghans and Iraqis masquerading as well-intentioned reconstruction efforts -- and all the blood we've shed, it's worth reviewing the fruits of our labor. Afghanistan: the Taliban in control of large swaths of countryside, warlords in control of most of the rest. Iraq: an unmitigated disaster, recoverable only by allying with a country led by Holocaust-deniers. Libya: equally grim, thanks to well-armed and dedicated Islamist fighters. Egypt: back under the control of a hated dictator. Yemen: beset by Al Qaeda, Sunni separatists in the east, and Shia separatists in the north and west. Syria: twice as bad as Iraq, if that's possible.

This is what intervention has produced -- or at least failed to prevent.

There is lot more to the article but I am not going to print the whole thing here but it is a great article on the situation by a person who has been there

Recent historical evidence suggests that if we intervene, we are less likely to end the suffering than to compound it, stretching the killing out over decades instead of years.

Beyond this, the danger is that such a move will play right into the hands of those we wish to defeat. It is important to understand that ISIS does not simply want to kill Americans. True, they don't like us, and they don't mind venting their frustration on those citizens unlucky enough to fall into their clutches. But their primary objective is to unify the Middle East under a particularly grim and violent form of Sunni Islam. And the best recruiting tool for ISIS, as for Al Qaeda, has been an America bent on intervention. The limited interventions that we typically undertake today, relying on drone strikes and/or house raids by special forces, all too often set communities against America; such actions may kill one or five or thirty "bad guys" -- and create ten or fifty or five hundred more.

This is why ISIS has dedicated so much propaganda toward the West, and why it makes such a gruesome show of beheading Western journalists: ISIS is terrified that America will not get involved. American interventions can make a potential ISIS recruit out of someone whose uncle's house was destroyed by a drone, or help ISIS demagogues blame the United States for the plight of refugees stuck in camps. To someone who has suffered loss or displacement, religious extremism may seem attractive in comparison. When an extremist mullah cuts off the hand of a thief, the act may be barbaric, but it has a measure of logic behind it -- unlike, say, a drone strike that wipes out a family celebrating a wedding. Having America as a military enemy helps miscreants like Al Qaeda and ISIS galvanize constituent populations in ways that they cannot if they are seen as merely waging a battle for supremacy with rival believers or ethnic groups. What ISIS relies on is a kind of bait-and-switch. They need us as their enemy.

Proponents of a limited intervention against ISIS advocate a combination of counterterrorism plus the military help of a regional proxy. But who should that be? Since neither Iran nor Assad's Syrian government are acceptable, we are actively considering both the Kurds and the moderate Syrian rebel alliance known as the Free Syrian Army (or FSA). Both options come with severe drawbacks. Arming the Kurds means abandoning the geographical structure of Iraq -- a structure that has remained intact since the era of British rule -- while enraging and destabilizing our NATO partner Turkey, which has its own Kurdish separatist problem. As for the FSA, they are notoriously unreliable; any weapons or aid we give them tend to end up in the hands of ISIS or the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front.

We cannot simply will a politically convenient partner into existence. In the absence of such a partner we are likely to fall back on the "whack-a-mole" approach of targeting and killing high-ranking terrorists via air strikes or drone strikes, or with Special Operations soldiers such as SEALs, Rangers, Delta, and other deployable (and often deniable) assets. The primary argument against this approach is that we've been doing it since September 11, 2001, and the bad guys keep coming. Meanwhile, there's no sign that the ever-popular resort to "surgical" airstrikes will deliver what we want. In his masterful book, The Limits of Air Power: The American Bombing of North Vietnam, Mark Clodfelter argues that bombing does very little to stop people from picking up arms in a conflict. What I observed in two and a half years of combat in Afghanistan convinced me he is right.

It seems that long before Hillary Clinton was a former Secretary of State, Senator from The Great State Of New York, First Lady of the United States, and lesbian murderess of her sex slave Vince Foster, she once wrote a few letters to Saul Alinsky who is the Emmanuel Goldstein-like nemesis of the Republican Party, but not in a anti-Semitic way because: USA & Israel, thunder buddies for life, ---- yeah!

Alinsky, for those who don't know, was a community organizer in Chicago, who wrote Rules For Radicals. Quite honestly I've never met one person who has actually read his Rules, although conservatives would have the world believe that liberals chant the rules in backward Latin beneath a full moon while drinking the blood of aborted babies … and then there is the ---- followed by Denny's for late night waffles.

The main Alinsky rule that makes conservatives poop blood out of their eyes -- I have seen this, it happens -- is the one that says: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Or as we call it: "We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you. Because you're an idiot."

Or, on Twitter: #lol #tcot #benghazi #derp #yolo

Anyway, getting back to Goodman's game-changer: Hillary Rodham, during her just-experimenting-with-
lesbianism-days at Wellesley and her internship with a "left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants," was writing letters to Alinsky, because, well, she was a big fan.

In one of Goodman's bombshells she reports, "On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked "Personal."

"Paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

Smoking gun, y'all.

What kind of American would use stamps bearing the likeness of Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Certainly not a Real American who eschews social security benefits, anything tainted by the WPA, and dimes ("American kopecks").

Additionally Hillary maybe possibly had a liaison with Alinsky in San Francisco:

"I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you," Clinton wrote. "Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together."

Clinton's letter reached Alinsky's office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.


"Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27," Harper [Alinsky's secretary] added. "I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together."

It is unclear whether the meeting occurred.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.

Hillary probably had a sexy-tiime visit with Alinsky, but their star-crossed love affair couldn't last because she belonged to Bill. She was a part of his work -- the thing that kept him going. And if she didn't stay with him, she'd regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of her life.

As for Hill and Saul, they'll always have Paris San Francisco.

Or Benghazi, whichever one will keep her from being elected…


Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable