summer patriot, winter soldier

asma al-assad ... barbara walters ... where are they now?

where are they now?

to explain how bashar al-assad is just a gentle, "... mild mannered ...," misunderstood, chinless opthamologist, with a little pot belly?  a quiet soul, as it were.

who murders people standing in breadlines.   a little flaw, nothing to get worked up about.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/12/you-asked-just-how-stupid-barbara-walters-is.html . 

john jay @ 08.31.2012

"the romney revolution" .... how's that for a campaign slogan ....

i would prefer "romney or revolution," but i am always being accused of being bellicose, and belligerent.  by those w/ more sensitive dispositions.

john jay @  08.29.2012

p.s.   buy guns.  buy ammo, and learn how to make your own.   be proficient in the use of arms.   and be extremely jealous of your liberties, and prepared to do as necessary to protect them.

isaac bashevis singer on the politics of jewish delusion ....

isaac bashevis singer on the politics of jewish delusion, e.g., the inability of jews to accurate perceive their friends and enemies:

singer described himself as "conservative," adding that "i don't believe by flattering the masses all the time we really achieve much." his conservative side was most apparent in his yiddish writing and journalism, where he was openly hostile to marxist sociopolitical agendas. in forverts he once wrote, "it may seem like terrible apikorses [heresy], but conservative governments in america, england, france, have handled jews no worse than liberal governments... the jew's worst enemies were always those elements that the modern jew convinced himself (really hypnotized himself) were his friends."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/isaac_bashevis_singer 

who am i to question his voice.

john jay @ 08.27.2012 

musings on the nature of political liberty ....

in some sense liberty is simply the banding together of the weak to protect against the overbearing power of the strong, and the privileged.

who is to protect us against the overbearing privilege of the aggrandized weak?

john jay @ 08.

p.s.   08.28.2012 .   i got up to check the calendar, and forgot to put the date in.  ah, the glories of the aging process.  laughing.

how'd they get there? .... courtesy the turks ....

friends:

how did the syrian "weapons of mass destruction" get there?  simple.  courtesy of the turks.

o.k., let us plug "the way back machine" into the wall socket, and engage our collective memories if just for a little bit.   sort of clear the cobwebs of history, and apply a little reason.   it should have been done a long time ago, but, better late than never.

do you remember when the united states and the coalition powers, e.g., u.n. membership that would get its hands dirty, were ramping up for the second invasion of iraq?  when saddam hussein was still in power, and still blustering that he would defeat those powers being assembling by george bush?

during that ramp up, the united states (and presumably other coalition powers) approached turkey for permission to stage invasion forces on the turkish and syrian borders, so as to be able to perform a "pincer movement" on syria, e.g., to invade from the north as well as the south of iraq.   iraq was in a pretty tenuous position anyway, and to have been faced with the prospect of a major invasion from the north would have made the situation well nigh impossible for the iraqi military.

well, it appeared as if turkey would grant the u.s. and coalition forces access to turkey to stage forces for an invasion.   then it didn't.  then it did.  it was simply to watch courtship carried on by two suitors for the favors & charms of a not so reluctant miss: business, at its basics, and at its basest.  simple as that.  and, finally, turkey denied permission for the u.s. and coalition forces to stage an invasion of the northern syrian areas.

this, my dear friends, is what a bargaining session looks like when viewed from the outside, and when viewed from the perspective of history.   and, this is precisely what happened.

the turks took the side of the highest bidder, and that highest bidder was iraq and saddam hussein.  he simply bought the turks, and assured himself that at the least he would be fighting a one or two front war (the southern borders, and the water, ... , never forget the navy, and never forget marine amphibious forces, which are incredibly mobile thanks to the amphibious landing carriers and other associated fleet resources.)  at least this way, he was not facing a northern component of an invasion, as well.

well, the u.s. could not stage in turkey.  nor did turkey allow the u.s. other associated buildup, including the amount of flyover over and from turkey necessary to interdict targets in syria.

so, in the weeks preceding the actual launch of the assault into iraq, we had the spectacle of the iraqi's sending a steady stream of heavy trucks into syria, along their common borders in the north western part of iraq.  a lot of booty went into syria, ... , some of it money & artifacts, ..., some of it chemical weapons, and the manufacturing infrastructure used to make it.

and, i have always argued, almost from day one, that this is where the iraq chemical weapons stocks and manufacturing capability went.  saddam hussein simply shipped it to his baathist cohorts in syria, to preserve it, hoping to ride out the invasion as mustered by george bush the younger, just as he had been delivered from destruction at the very last moment by george bush the elder.

it was good analysis then.   unfortunately for me, it was not an analysis backed up by subsequent cia investigation (they didn't want to know very damned bad, did they), nor was it analysis that was even hinted at by the mainstream media (not only did they not want to know, but, it terms of bulwarking their leftist agenda and promoting and protecting barack "the one and true hussein" obama, it was fact and analysis that they actively suppressed.)

in my view, it is absolutely confirmed analysis and argument now.  the facts speak for themselves, now.

and, the media and the leftists would be suppressing these facts today, were it not for one salient little situation, which demands the matter be brought to light.--

the syrian government is gassing its own people in order to suppress an increasingly successful insurrection.   google it.  do a little work.  you'll find the hints/suggestions/growing proof there, as it is appearing more often in posts from syria.

the truth can no longer be ignored.

and those of us who have been marginalized and ridiculed for the application of sweet reason, based on observed phenomena, will be vindicated.

not that you will ever hear about it, save from our very lips.  laughing.

but, that is the way of things, and not to be railed against.  it's just the way it is.

but, i was right then.   and, i am right now.

and the media, and the left, and barack obama in particular, are exposed for the lying, cynical & manipulative bastards that they are.  they attacked, ridiculed, and savaged george bush, and came up with the atrocious falsehood of "bush lied, people died," and now they are exposed for the craven liars that they were, and are.

i take my own little obscure satisfaction in all that.

now, it is for history to judge.  (thank you, roy medvedev, for that timeless observation.)

john jay @ 08.27.2012

does nobody give a shit that recent stories confirm that george bush was slandered and besmerched by the democrats so that barack obama could gain the presidency? .... is the news that "old?" ....

recent stories at nti, http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-contingency-plans-syria-call-fielding-elite-unites-seize-chemical-arms/ , and the los angeles times, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-syria-20120823,0,6157005.story , confirm the presence of chemical weapons in syria.  this is done to support the obama administrations planning to send "elite troops" into syria to secure those weapons, to prevent them passing into the hand of hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

(odd, given that the u.s. government doesn't think there are any terrorists in the world.  but, that's another story.  isn't it?)

with regard to how syria obtained these weapons the los angeles times said only, without further comment:

"u.s. intelligence agencies believe syria has over the years produced or acquired [my emphasis: jjj] hundreds of tons of sarin nerve agent and mustard gas, a blister agent, and has sought to develop vx, another powerful nerve gas."  los angeles times, world, august 22, 2012 by david s. cloud and shashank bengali.

now, in a previous post, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2012/08/the-us-is-worried-about-syrian-chemical-weapons-now-just-where-in-the-hell-did-they-come-from-.html , i asked an obvious question regarding just where the nerve gas agents were obtained by syria, seeing as how they don't really have nor had they ever really had the ability to manufacture such weapons. 

this later point is pretty much confirmed, in a bass ackward sort of way, by the following observation in the same article as linked and quoted above:

"the toxicity of some chemical agents degrades significantly over time, so it is unclear how lethal the stockpiles are."  ibid. 

this means syria hasn't made any lately, and is not likely to make any in the immediate future, confirming that it really doesn't have the capacity to make it.   therefore, it seems relatively open to reasonable inference and conclusion that it got it from someone else, some time ago, at least long enough ago that its quality and potency may have significantly deteriorated.

this means to anyone besides the clinically brain dead and terminally credulous that syria obtain the chemical weapons from sadaam hussein.

now, i pointed to this same conclusion in my previous article.  it seems obvious enough to me.  and, i point to the equally obvious circumstance of a very cynical and partisan press confirming the presence of the very same poisonous gas in syria that it denied being present in iraq under sadaam hussein.  it seems patently clear that to deny this gas in iraq was politic & politics, and that to affirm it is syria is politic & politics, and all done to promote the political welfare of the political left and barack "the one and true hussein" obama.

the response to my story has been total indifference, a resounding "thud" as it has crashed to the ground almost without notice.

i find this most curious.

now, it could simply mean that most of the political reporting i do is to be ignored.

but, goodness.

this set of facts and circumstances seems to me an amazingly clear confirmation of the fact that george bush, a good and decent man in my opinion, though perhaps fallible and flawed like the rest of us, was ridiculed, savaged and castigated for his position that the war prosecuted against iraq was done so to take away his control over "weapons of mass destruction."

that no such "weapons of mass destruction" were found in large quantities was the foundation of the vicious democratic mantra that "bush lied, & people died," and that no firm rationale existed to prosecute the war in iraq.

well, that rationale has been found, apparently to the satisfaction of the press, to be present in syria in the form of "weapons of mass destruction" whose presence is taken seriously enough to posit the intervention of american troops to take possession of it.  and, then, presumably to "destroy" it.   again, this is to prevent the stuff from falling into the hands of terrorists that the obama administration says really don't exist.

there is, after all, in the view of the hilary clinton united states department of state, "no such thing as a bad boy."

nobody seems to care.

the facts are clear enough that anyone could reach the same conclusions i have, indeed, they seem rather mandatory in the exercise of logic, yet no one seems to care to take the time to take this through.

and, no one seems to think in relevant within the context of this election cycle, that the last election cycle was purposefully tainted by the electioneering tactics of barack obama and the democratic party.   they ignored the salient facts, miscast them (indeed, conveniently forgetting that at the state of the spool up to get the second invasion of iraq going and authorized by the u.n., which it was, that very many democrats who later savage george bush initially also advanced the position that weapons of mass destruction were being manufactured and were stockpiled in iraq.  can no one remember this?), and exploited them to attack the administration and to advance the election of barack obama.

i think this history relevant within the context of this election.--

especially the cynicism and "intellectual flexibility" of a democratic party that can condemn bush's policies, yet take credit for the success of wars in iraq in afghanistan that followed policies crafted by bush and his administration.

yet, none of my colleagues, if such they be, seem to think this warrants much more than a yawn.

i don't know why?

do they think the defeat of barack obama is such a foregone conclusion that they don't want to cause any unnecessary "rancor" that might disrupt the orderly eviction of the clown from office?   well, i got news for them.  it is not a foregone conclusion, and it is not going to be that damned orderly.

and, analysis like this is relevant for public consideration.

those of us on the right ought to be screaming bloody murder about this, especially about the cynicism and cupidity of politicians and press in league who argued "no weapons" in iraq and now utter "weapons" in syria, because it fits the aims of the obama administration.

i am positively at loss to explain or understand why nobody else on the right takes this at all seriously, even enough to comment on it.  it cannot be that they are that damned dumb, because nobody could be that damned dumb.

john jay @ 08.26.2012

an interesting conversation ....

"you've got to have something to eat and a little love in your life before you can hold still for any damn body's sermon on how to behave."   ~~  billie holiday

"the way i see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain."  ~~  dolly parton

"the quotable woman," running press book publishers, philadelphia, 1991.

john jay @ 08.25.2012

sDee, please come by more often ....

sDee:

caught your act at "the right scoop."   looks like a nice place.

come by more often.

john jay @ 08.25.2012

the u.s. is worried about syrian chemical weapons .... now, just where in the hell did they come from ....

chemical weapons.

if that doesn't ring a bell for you, how about "weapons of mass destruction."

this article, dateline august 23, 2012 from the national journal entitled "u.s. could send elite weapons to seize syrian chemical weapons stockpiles" relates that the obama administration is considering sending u.s. troops into syria to seize chemical weapons stockpiled there.

no mention of significant production capacity, nor any analysis of a "military/industrial" base capable of manufacturing such weapons in quantity.  there "... are said ..." to be a limited number of plants, though no analysis of how long they may have been in production, or how much has been produced in them.  it is a bit skimpy, this "analysis," to say the least.  http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-contingency-plans-syria-call-fielding-elite-unites-seize-chemical-arms/ .

no conjecture about where they may have come from.

well, the answer is just obvious.

you don't have to be a particle physicist to reach the reasonable conclusion based upon inference from historical fact that these are the weapons that sadaam hussein had manufactured when he ruled iraq, and that he scooted out of iraq and into syria before and during the u.s. led invasion of his country that toppled him from rule.

there is one other conclusion that is inescapable.

the media is capable of seeing chemical weapons when it fits its agenda, and is totally blind to them and decries anyone who does seem them, when that posture fits its agenda.  in other words, the media has a totally cynical view about fact and truth, views it as a malleable commodity, and is willing to subsume truth to its own convenience.

let's put it another way.  when it is convenient for the media's leftist agenda and to promote its opposition to a given foreign policy, say as advanced by a conservative president like george bush, then it does not see "chemical weapons," or "weapons of mass destruction."   but, when it is convenient for the media's leftist agenda to promote its support for the "foreign policy" of a leftist radical socialist/communist president, say like barack "the one and true hussein" obama, then it sees chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction with the clarity of an eagle in flight scanning the ground for field mice.

read the article.

you will find no mention of of sadaam hussein, the war in iraq, or the fact that syria and iraq under sadaam were both ruled by the baathist party.  that syria remains ruled by the baathist party.

you will find no mention of the fact that it is not documented that syria really ever had the industrial capacity to manufacture a lot of chemical weapons.  make that read "weapons of mass destruction."  the article mentions only that four plants "...  are said ..." to be located in syria, and in the towns that the syrian rebellion seems to be most active.  there is no discussion whether these "plants" had the capacity to manufacture the weapons which are discussed, by type.  but, not by quantity.

yet, here the leftist journalists are worried about it.

the russians are worried about it.  "russia said on thursday that it was collaborating with the syria government to deal with any potential threats to the chemical arsenal, the associated press reported."  http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-contingency-plans-syria-call-fielding-elite-unites-seize-chemical-arms/

you figure it out.  give it a thought, for a second or two, and see what you conclude.  i just re-read the article in its entirety, and not one mention of sadaam hussein and iraq.  not one mention of the trucks that streamed for weeks from out of iraq into syria.  not one mention that the four plants that "... are said ..." to be in syria had anything to do with, or had the capacity to create, the chemical weapons stockpiles that the soviet russians wish to "protect."

interesting word, that word "protect," is it not?  the article did not discuss that word, "protect," or to what end and for whom they would "protect" it.

that is not part of the media agenda.  dig?

 

john jay @ 08.24.2012

"a hero of our time," mikhail lermontov .... (translated by vladimir nabokov) ....

everybody is bored, especially pechorin.  

so, they behave badly, manipulate others, and portray themselves and their hearts falsely to gain power over others.  and, they are fascinated with the inner workings of their psyches, and the plotting of their schemes to exert influence over others.

for whom they have no real affection, or real longing.  they are infatuated, however, with the notion that they might actually experience genuine emotion some day.

they find ultimately that they cannot fill empty lives w/ empty gestures.  they may be disappointed by this notion, but i am not sure for how long.  most of their angst is salved by a new conquest.  to be replaced by further angst.

they, in effect, become actors playing their own part, and with about as much commitment and emotion.  they have "objectified" themselves and their inner workings to a part of their inner self that acts as observer, and critic, and to whom no one is more fascinating than himself.

you would recognize them.  they are very contemporary.  the russians literary types were very astute at seeing what modern man & woman were becoming, with the waning of necessity as motivator and the waxing of indulgence brought on by wealth and all kinds of time to kill.

quite a few things do not end well.

one of the characters remarks to his russian compatriot that it was the french who invented boredom, to which the other replies that no, it was the besotted english.

surely, the russians were not far behind.  and, the rest of us, not far behind the russians.

it is one of the sources of the downfall of contemporary america (one of the last societies to befall to this malady, this mania for self indulgence), that posturing and preening to the mirror have largely replaced and subsumed the real struggle for existence.

oh, it goes on, but it has been masked by materially rich societies.  it is real enough to the rest of the world.  they hate us for our shallowness and emptiness, even as they say to themselves, i gotta get me some of that.

"a hero of our time," by mikhail lermontov.  an unblinking look into the hall of mirrors that has become the modern man.

this is a world in which schopenhauer triumphs over kant, hegel, and eventually, even over nietzsche.  mist become substance.   the irony, of course, is that even the heroic act for our hero is naught but a pose.  the world is his boulevard, upon which he strolls in nice shoes and a well turned frock.

he kills his antagonist.  but, it is only in a fit of pique that the man will not be manipulated into being his public foil, would rather choose death than a humiliation into which he has been manipulated.  some irony there?

john jay @ 08.22.2012

p.s.  what'shisface, chuckie, i think his name is, at "little green footballs", and 10,000 chimpanzees equipped w/ 10,001 computers couldn't have written this review locked up in a hotel ballroom for 10,000 years.  although i suspect a couple of the chimpanzees would have gotten the book read over that space of time.  i am not so sure about chuckie.

Related articles

The Caucasus

Vladimir Nabokov's Butterfly Drawings, and Other News