I don't usually watch the Oscar Awards
ceremony which is televised to all the star struck people in
television land. I have never seen the fascination in following who
is paired with whom on the red carpet or what they are wearing. I
just check after the main event to see who has been crowned best
actor or actress, or which film has come out as the winner. But this
year for some reason I was on that channel when the last awards were
handed out. The best actor award went to Eddie Redmayne for
portraying Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything”, which
follows his rather extraordinary life. I have not seen the movie,
but like so many people out there, I know who Stephen Hawking is and
have read at least one of his books.
We do not know what amount of time we
are granted on this Earth. But what we do with that time can be our choice. Stephen Hawking chose to overcome a severe disability
to use his mind to delve into the mysteries of human existence, and
the beginning of time and space as we know it. He chose to do
something positive to further mankind's knowledge.
Just this evening I was watching the
news and heard that they have identified “Jihadi John”. Although
apparently they have known his name for some time, but chose to
withhold it in hopes of possibly figuring out his location.
Since they are going public with his name I have to assume they have
given up that hope. Jihadi John is, of course, the black clad,
masked man we have been seeing on the news holding the large knife
over a kneeling hostage. He is the public face for the group ISIL.
The contrast between what Stephen Hawking chose to do with his life
and what this man has chosen is stark.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
129 comments:
There were reports back when Jihadi John first acquired his notorioty that the Brits had figured out his identity. The British government refused to confirm it, but there were the usual unidentified "sources", both British and American, who supposedly would confirm confidence in his identity, off-the-record. It got a few news paragraphs and a 20 second blurb on the evening news within a week or ten days of the release of the first snuff video. But, with nothing more to report, the news was largely overlooked. Now they have a name, which gets them people to identify and put on the news, people who knew him when he was growing up in London. With video it's now a news item again.
I notice that you've tinkered with your comments' links. Is that supposed to lead eventually to a solution for the "not a robot" insert? Or did you get rid of the "are you sure" nag screen?
@ Lynnette,
NYT is reporting that Marco Rubio has made the decision and he's in the race for 2016.
@Lynnette,
You're not gonna like this environmental news.
I notice that you've tinkered with your comments' links. Is that supposed to lead eventually to a solution for the "not a robot" insert? Or did you get rid of the "are you sure" nag screen?
Hmmm...not sure what you mean. The 'I'm not a robot' thingy has been here a while. I just ignore it. It doesn't really seem to do anything. Anyway, whatever it is, I didn't add it. Probably something blogger did.
Here's an article that Petes sent me recently. It goes a little more in depth as to how the ocean temps affect our weather.
Did you read any of the comments attached to your article? Some were rather interesting.
2036 is a little soonish for my taste. Yup, you're right, I'm not liking that.
I seriously doubt that any of the future presidential candidates will deal well with the global warming issue.
"Hmmm...not sure what you mean."
The link to the comments' section now connects to ‘https׃//draft.blogger.com/comment.g?BlogID=etc.…’. (emphasis added) Check that against your old notices and you'll see that it's changed.
And I did notice the ‘robot’ notice has been there for a long time--I inquired as to whether or not that was a prelude to an eventual solution.
"I seriously doubt that any of the future presidential candidates will deal
well with the global warming issue."
Republicans probably won't. Maybe Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. It's kinda hard to keep pretending when ya hail from Florida which is takin’ on water pretty damn fast. They're keeping up the pretense for now, but maybe they'll find the courage to admit to the truth after they've won the Presidency; I'll not hold my breath, but maybe. Of course, that'd be a ‘maybe’ in comparison to Hillary, from whom I'm not expecting much either.
"Did you read any of the comments attached to your article?"
I did not. Well, I glanced at the first couple of them, and then moved on. Maybe I'll get a chance to look at them in more detail later. I looked at your article, and halfway down I realized I was going to have to pay it some closer attention in order to absorb all the nuance (havta go over those graphics a little closer). So, I downloaded the page, graphics and all, and hope to go over it later tonight. Maybe I'll look at those comments again too.
It seems that the DHS has gotten a seven day reprieve. *sigh*
Even some Republicans are starting to wonder about the reasoning of their own party members.
The link to the comments' section now connects to ‘https׃//draft.blogger.com/comment.g?BlogID=etc.…’
I'm looking now and on mine it doesn't say "draft" before the "blogger.com". Is it something that has just changed on your computer?
"Is it something that has just changed on your computer?"
That may be it. I briefly reverted to using IE8 on Windows XP. Snagged the links from there. I'll let ya know when I switch back.
"Even some Republicans are starting to wonder about the reasoning
of their own party members."
I've been listening to those clowns on the Sunday morning talking heads' shows. They're clueless; they cannot conceive of the notion that shooting themselves in the foot while screaming 'Obama' somehow isn't working for them.
Ebola...Act II
They're clueless; they cannot conceive of the notion that shooting themselves in the foot while screaming 'Obama'
I know, I was listening to one fellow, don't remember his name, but all he could focus on was Obama's illegal actions and he continued to blame the Democrats for all of the stalemate. Never mind that it is again the Republicans who are holding the safety of the country hostage while they kick and scream throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way.
I've also been following the challenge to Obamacare in the Supreme Court. Basically they are saying that all of the states that do not have their own exchanges, just the federal one, should not be allowed to offer subsidies for their residents who signed up for insurance through the federal exchange. Of course, all of those states are Republican controlled. The Republicans are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but all of the residents in their states who have taken advantage of the new found affordable insurance.
The stupidity of it all just makes me want to cry.
"The stupidity of it all just makes me want to cry."
At least they're not settling things with four rounds in the back just outside the Capitol Building.
But, they do seem to think we'll forget that the Republicans are the ones who insisted on setting this up as their protest against Obama. They are the ones who moved the funding for Homeland Security out of the normal budget process just so they could have this very fight. Now they're pissed that the Democrats won't cave (gawd only knows where they got the damn fool idea that was gonna happen), and they seem to think that it's somehow the Democrats' fault that the Democrats see no reason to cave.
"Of course, all of those states are Republican controlled."
Yeah, it has begun to occur to the smarter ones that if they do happen to win that court case, they'll almost certainly not recover from it in time to avoid getting blown out in the 2016 elections.
The winefalcon is going with the theory that the assassination of Boris Nemtsov is a ‘false flag operation’ being run by the ‘Ango-Zionists’, by which he means the Brits and the Americans, at the behest of the Jews.
More Islamic book burnings…
"In Mosul, Iraq, [ISIS] followers burned 8,000 books they found in
libraries. ‘These books promote infidelity and call for disobeying
Allah,’ according to one ISIS soldier on the scene. ‘So they will be
burned.’"
National Post
(The ‘National Post’ is Canadian conservative, and has previously been accused of systemic hostility to Islam, in case one wants to get into the rest of the article.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
John Boehner seems to think he's got an agreement to get funding for the Dept. of Homeland Security back on track, but apparently nobody else can seem to agree on what's the agreement. Both sides appear to be under the impression the other side has agreed to back down. Politico.com
It would seem that an agreement on how to handle taking Mosul back from ISIS has been harder to achieve than early reports indicated was likely. Talk of an April offensive against Mosul has dropped off at the Pentagon, and, with Iranian encouragment and heavy Shia militia involvement, Baghdad has instead begun an interim offensive to retake Tikrit, which they think they can hold, and which does not particularly interest, nor implicate, the Kurds. New York Times
(I have not changed my theory on how best to handle Mosul. It's not likely that Baghdad will agree any time soon, but, then again, the Kurds have shown they can be patient.)
Yeah, it has begun to occur to the smarter ones that if they do happen to win that court case,...
What is also rather scary are the Republican supporters who have taken advantage of the ACA's benefits who really don't understand that their own representatives are undermining those benefits. The American voters can be a scary lot.
The winefalcon is going with the theory that the assassination of Boris Nemtsov is a ‘false flag operation’ being run by the ‘Ango-Zionists’, by which he means the Brits and the Americans, at the behest of the Jews.
As apparently was the downing of flight MH17. It's absolutely amazing how anyone looking at the disunity and acrimony that are continually exhibited by Washington can actually believe we would have our act together long enough to do a false flag operation. But judging by many of the commenters there, there appear to be a lot of gullible people out there.
Wasn't Nemtsov doing some kind of book on the corruption in Russia? If it wasn't Putin who was behind the hit it was probably one of his oligarch friends. I'm sure Putin will find a good scapegoat to pin it on. Having the propagandists suggest it was the US or UK is just an added bonus to silencing a dissenting voice.
We don't need to do that kind of provocation to try to destabilize Russia. Putin's policies will do that on their own.
Twitter has weighed in in the battle against ISIL by suspending around 2,000 accounts that are associated with the group. ISIL has responded by threatening Twitter employees in California.
The Nation Museum of Iraq reopens.
"But judging by many of the commenters there, there appear to be
a lot of gullible people out there."
Dedicated conspiracy fans would do. I'm kinda surprised our own occasional conspiracy theorist hasn't dropped by to explain how us Evil Merkins were likely behind it.
"Wasn't Nemtsov doing some kind of book on the corruption in
Russia?"
I'm not aware of any book he was writing, but he's been a thorn in Putin's side from back in the early days when Putin became Boris Yeltsin's surprise choice as his successor.
" The American voters can be a scary lot."
The thing is, a lot of people only pay occasional attention to politics. A lot of politicians know this (the talkers at Radio Right-Wing know it and depend on it). So, a lot of bullshit gets peddled to folks who only start to pay attention when shit hits the fan or an election is right on top of them. They're fodder for a good bullshit line.
Emmer takes on GOP's far right flank
Hmmm...maybe I should take a closer look at Emmer. It looks like he's not completely unreasonable.
An OP Ed in my paper...
What would Muslims like you to know?
"The thing is, a lot of people only pay occasional attention to politics."
The real problem, as I see it, is that there's been a revolution on the right-wing. They've rediscovered the power of demigoguery, just as they saddled themselves with a shrinking ‘base’ who's scared of the future. However, this will sort itself out. Their base continues to shrink. Soon, fairly soon, demogoguery and fear won't be enough to fire up the few who's left to them, ‘cause there won't be enough left to ‘em. Even fired up there won't be enough of them.
Senator Lindsey Graham put it fairly succinctly a few years ago. The problem with their current political model, what dooms it to failure, is that they're not breeding enough angry old white folks to keep up with the world. Very soon their high voting rates won't be enough to overcome the differential in numbers.
The problem with the ‘What would Muslims like you to Know’ piece is that they don't need to be telling that to us. They need to be telling that to the Islamists!
You might want to try a different link for that other article. You've linked to a "press reader" for your local paper that most folks won't have installed on their systems. Only one of my browsers would open it, and it's unreadable even in that one.
Okay, I'll go grab it from the S'trib. That one just popped up first.
Here's an article about the gang rape of the woman on the bus in India a while back. Apparently they are doing some kind of documentary on India's social problems with regard to the treatment of women. And from the looks of it they run pretty deep. It doesn't make me want to visit that country any time soon.
See if this link works better.
The problem with the ‘What would Muslims like you to Know’ piece is that they don't need to be telling that to us. They need to be telling that to the Islamists!
It's much easier to tell it to your teacher as he/she is unlikely to behead you.
But in any case, it sounds like those people were just trying to differentiate themselves from the extremists.
Yeah, that link works better.
And he does seem to be an improvement over Michele Bachmann.
Netanyahu's finished his speach. He didn't make any friends. The right-wingers were already his friends because they deemed his speach to be an insult to the Obama administration just by the fact of its making, and they're down with any insult to the Obama administration, so they were already on-board. But, it does appear that Netanyahu managed to piss off some Democrats with the content of his speech.
On the other hand, the Republican Congressmen and Senators filled the empty seats with aids and staffers and gave Netanyahu a film record of a standing-room-only crowd to play back home in Israel, and it's just two weeks until the Israeli elections, so Netanyahu may have done himself some good in his election campaign back home.
I listened to the speech. I'm thinking there are some areas in the Middle East where it would have been well received. Saudi Arabia comes to mind.
A couple of interesting articles here...
Migrants, exhausted and hungry seek dream of better life in E.U.
That reminds me of the US/Mexican border.
Climate Change and Syrian War
It's strange when to see a foreign leader come to America, invited by the political opposition, to piss on the US president and there's little outrage 'bout it.
Reminds me of what an american I know once told me: "Israel is like the 51'st state, and it's by far the most powerful".
"It's strange…there's little outrage 'bout it."
It may seem stranger to Europeans because they tend to focus on the fact that it's the Israeli head of state, or maybe because it's impossible for this to happen in a parliamentary system, in which the ‘political opposition’ to the administration does not, by design cannot, appoint the head of the legislature--the majority party in the parliament is, after all, the party which forms the administration. Such an invitation could never be made because the political parties wishing to embarrass the administration simply don't control the parliament to begin with.
In the case of America, it's not so strange to have the leader of Israel address the Congress. This is Netanyahu's third such address to Congress, the first two were initiated by the then President (1996--under Bill Clinton, and 2011--under Barak Obama), so Netanyahu addressing the Congress is not seen as such a novel thing here.
As for the ‘political opposition’ going to such lengths to embarrass the President… Quite simply, Americans have become used to the Republicans being outrageous in their dealings with Obama--there is a certain amount of ‘outrage fatigue’ that's set in. It is no longer novel--it's just the way they roll. It's been the way they roll for nigh onto seven years now.
I would not have you underestimate the amount of simmering anger there is over it. But our capacity for outrage over Republican political shenanigans has been fairly exhausted.
I am, by the way, consistently amazed at how many people don't get what's going on here. This isn't about getting a deal with Iran to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The Iranians would (will) simply cheat on any deal that prevented them from moving ahead with their weapons program.
This is about keeping the Europeans on-board with the sanctions against Iran. The sanctions are what's keeping them from getting the weapons. The Europeans would, as always, like to get rid of those pesky things and get on to the important business of making sales to Iran. They'd like nothing better than to be able to claim it's the United States which is being unreasonable, it's not the Iranians fault they want nukes. It's the Evil Merkins' fault. So, this is about us being ‘reasonable’, so that, when the Iranians refuse to agree, and they will in the end refuse to agree, then we don't have the E.U. deciding that they can blame us for the breakdown in negotiations and then claim it's open season on selling high-tech to the Iranians again. Obama's simply trying to maintain the status quo.
Republicans are getting all geared up to raise holy hell over Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account instead of a government e-mail account (with retention rules and, of course, government investigative access to contents). Radio Right-Wing is wriggling with delight. Congressional Republicans are beginning to chatter. Hillary Clinton has so far not bothered to seem even remotely interested in the subject.
"Well, this might be the explanation: The new regs [requiring
Department heads to use government accounts or conform their
existing private accounts to government practices] apparently weren’t
fully implemented by State until a year and half after Clinton left State.
Here’s the timeline: Clinton left the State Department on February 1,
2013. Back in 2011, President Obama had signed a memorandum
directing the update of federal records management. But the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) didn’t issue the relevant
guidance, declaring that email records of senior government officials
are permanent federal records, until August 2013. Then, in September
2013, NARA issued guidance on personal email use."
Daily Beast
Wiki says:
Foreign dignitaries[edit]
Foreign heads of state and heads of government from 48 countries have addressed joint meetings of Congress more than a hundred times. Israel and the United Kingdom lead the list with eight joint meeting addresses by heads of state or dignitaries. Other leading countries are: France (7), Mexico (7), Italy (6), Ireland (6), South Korea (6), Germany, including West Germany and unified Germany (5), India (4), Canada (4), Australia (4), Argentina (3), and the Philippines (3). Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill have each made three joint addresses to Congress, more than any other foreign dignitaries (Netanyahu: 1996,[4] 2011,[5] 2015;[6] Churchill: 1941, 1943, 1952). Prime Minister of Israel Yitzak Rabin addressed joint meetings of Congress on two occasions (1976 and 1994) as did Nelson Mandela of South Africa (1990 and 1994).[7]
The Marquis de Lafayette, the French general and Revolutionary War hero, was the first foreign dignitary to address the House of Representatives. Lafayette delivered a speech before a meeting in the House Chamber on 10 December 1824. The first non-head of government to address a joint meeting of Congress was Polish Solidarity leader Lech Wałęsa in 1989. Nelson Mandela, then Deputy President of the African National Congress addressed a joint meeting in 1990.[8]
Twice have joint meetings been attended by dignitaries from two countries: On September 18, 1978, when Congress was addressed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and on July 26, 1994, when Congress was addressed by King Hussein of Jordan and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia had originally been scheduled to address Congress on September 12, 2001, but his address was postponed due to the September 11 terrorist attacks the previous day. Howard's address was rescheduled for June 12, 2002 where he spoke about the attacks he had witnessed 9 months earlier. Howard was acknowledged with a standing ovation. John Howard describes this occasion as a "moving moment."[9]
The most recent address by a foreign dignitary was given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3, 2015. The next scheduled address is by Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome on September 24, 2015.
All foreign heads of state are presented officially to Congress in the same manner as the President during the State of the Union Address.
As far as the content of Netanyahu's speech, Marcus, he is free to express his opinion as he pleases. That is the point of free speech. Is it going to get him what he wants? That remains to be seen. Despite some people's thinking that we are always in lock step with Israel, we do have our own agenda as well. The President will make up his own mind. But perhaps that speech had more to do with Israel's domestic politics than any intended slight to Obama.
I can say with a large amount of confidence that for the average American the speech wasn't even on their radar. It was for the political analysts, media and people like us to discuss and speculate about. :)
Republicans are getting all geared up to raise holy hell over Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account instead of a government e-mail account...
Huh! Gave up on the pantsuits.
This will probably be a non event for most Americans as well. How many people do you know who use personal email at work? She did turn over anything related to her work.
Something more disturbing was Petraeus' little black books of sensitive info he carried around. *sigh* I rather liked him too. He just threw it all away. But then he's not running for anything.
"But perhaps that speech had more to do with Israel's domestic
politics than any intended slight to Obama."
Ain't buyin’ that one for a second. No way in hell Boehner put Netanyahu's domestic political situation ahead of, or anywhere near on par with, a chance for takin’ whacks at Obama.
"Something more disturbing was Petraeus' little black books of
sensitive info he carried around. *** He just threw it all away."
No shit! Wholly disgraced himself without any outside help at all.
"in hell Boehner put Netanyahu's domestic political situation ahead of, or anywhere near on par with, a chance for takin’ whacks at Obama."
Possibly converging interests. The Reps wanted to beat on Obama, Netanyahu wanted to grandstand for a domestic audience.
Still - regardless of what Lynnette believes - I cant really envision a leader from any other nation having pissing on a sitting US prez that blatantly. You disagree?
"I cant really envision a leader from any other nation having pissing
on a sitting US prez that blatantly. You disagree?"
Perhaps you'll wish to rephrase that question. Your meaning is not entirely clear. You could perhaps mean that you can't see where any other national leader would have the gall to ‘piss on a sitting US prez’ that blatantly?
If that's your meaning, I'd have to disagree. There are several other national leaders who'd dearly love to have that opportunity. Need I mention some of them for you?
Perhaps you mean that the Republicans wouldn't have the gall to invite any other national leader except the Israeli Prime Minister to do the pissing job for them?
If that's your meaning, I'd have to disagree with that too. They'd be willing to invite several others to do the job for them. Not everybody, but there are a couple of nations who're considered consistent enough allies, or whose current circumstances are such, that the Republicans would be happy enough to invite them to piss on this President in public from the rotunda of Capitol Hill.
I will agree that there is a particular confluence of circumstances at work here though. I can't think of any other national leader whom the Republicans would be willing to invite to do the job, and who would actually agree to do the job they wanted done. Only Netanyahu is currently willing to tell a tale that matches up with Republican faerie tales and public policy closely enough to get such an invitation, but they'd be quite willing to extend the opportunity to selected others who'd play along with them, if they could find others who'd play along with them.
Perhaps I should rephrase that one line…
"Only Netanyahu is currently willing to tell a tale that matches up
with Republican faerie tales and campaign philosophy closely enough
to get such an invitation."
It is fairly clear that the Republicans who have a shot at the nomination have absolutely no intention of indulging Netanyahu's wishes. They're not actually going to go to war with Iran over Iran's nuclear program. They like to keep Iran unsure of that, but they're not really gonna do it. Some of the crazier ones may wish that they could, but they're not gonna, not absent a gift of some sort from Iran. (Cheney's gift from al-Qaeda is the sort of thing that only comes along once in a blue moon. And even that required the coincidence of Cheney, ready and willing to seize upon it, and Bush, still a neophyte in international matters, and then still willing to listen to Cheney.)
It appears I'm not the only one who's noticed that Putin's politics and policies are, in fact, classical fascist ideology in practice, no matter what other terminology he may choose to name it by.
The Fascist in the Kremlin -- Ola Cichowlas
Unfortunately, Ola doesn't much get into how much Putin's economic philosophy matches up with classical fascist socio/economic ideology, but surely somebody else will notice and get around to that eventually.
Final note to Marcus (back to Netanyahu pissing on Obama)…
If you get the impression that I think the invitation to Netanyahu has much more to do with domestic politicial processess than to Israel's situation, then you got the right impression. This is primarily about Obama, not about Israel. It is secondarily about the Republicans trying to retake their lost domestic political advantage in regards to domestice public perceptions about relative competence in the handling of foreign affairs.
…in regards to domestic public perceptions about relative competence in the handling of foreign affairs.
Possibly converging interests. The Reps wanted to beat on Obama, Netanyahu wanted to grandstand for a domestic audience.
That's what I'm thinking.
…in regards to domestic public perceptions about relative competence in the handling of foreign affairs.
Except it is not Obama that the Republicans have to try to get the American voter to question.
"Except it is not Obama that the Republicans have to try to get the
American voter to question."
That is technically true. However, as they've bashed Obama they've also seen their ratings rise on the question of ‘Who do you trust…’ Democrats vs Republicans generic. They've managed this by generally avoiding any specific policy prescriptions (with the limited exceptions of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and now Kelly Ayotte--as the third musketeer, replacing the now retired Joe Lieberman).
It seems that generalized and generic howling about the things that make the general population uneasy has convinced many low information voters that the Republicans must know what they're up to, while the world as it is makes them uneasy these days. The Republicans seem to ‘get it’ to enough of those people to have turned the tide on generic perceptions. (Whether that'll hold when folks start paying actual attention to details and policy suggestions is another question entirely, but it's been working for Republicans during the intersession between Presidential elections. And, they're desperate to regain that ground, so they're workin’ it for all it's currently worth.)
"If that's your meaning, I'd have to disagree. There are several other national leaders who'd dearly love to have that opportunity. Need I mention some of them for you?"
Please do. But limit them to leaders from "friendly nations" who can piss away and get standing ovations.
Getting ‘standing ovations’ wasn't among my parameters. In fact, I specifically mentioned that currently only Netanyahu was willing to tell a tale that matches up closely enough with standard Republican campaign stump-speach bullshit talking points (i.e. that talking tough is somehow gonna be enough to intimidate our enemies into complying with our wishes--actually doing something will, of course, be unnecessary).
But limit them to leaders from "friendly nations" who can piss away and get standing ovations.
It has been apparent for some time that the split between the Democratic and Republican parties is at its most acrimonious. This is merely another symptom of that.
Perhaps the question should be is there another leader out there willing to run the risk of "pissing away" at the President? I'm thinking that Bibi might be a little unusual, not because he is the leader of Israel, but because of his...ummm...personality.
"Perhaps the question should be is there another leader out there
willing to run the risk of ‘pissing away’ at the President?"
I suggested that he might want to consider re-phrasing his question. He has resisted the idea so far, perhaps because I suggested it.
In any case, there were negotiations between Boehner and representatives for Netanyahu before the invitation was extended. Boehner obviously kept his end of the bargain; he delivered a packed house in the U.S Capitol Building, cheering for Netanyahu. (Obviously, Netanyahu kept his end of the bargain also--he mimicked Republican campaign rhetoric almost perfectly.) I imagine there are other foreign leaders who will have taken notice and now wonder if they should open negotiations with Boehner also.
McConnell postpones vote on Iran bill
Meanwhile, back in ISIL land...throwing people off roofs is the name of the game.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch… The efforts to get Congressional authorization for military action against ISIS appear to be going nowhere just now.
Even as another U.S. backed Syrian rebel group has been overtaken by radicals (Nusra in this case, but not much better than ISIS)
And these clowns want to spend their time growling at Iran to prove they're tough, like that's gonna impress the Iranians.
Hopefully this is an accurate account, because this is how it really needs to be done.
From that article that Marcus linked to the collapse, or absorption into ISIL, by various Syrian rebel groups doesn't come as a surprise. It is, however, depressing.
...into ISIL...
Or Nusra...
It's a tough neighborhood and people will gravitate to the group that can protect them.
On the other hand, there are indications that's not how it's being done around Tikrit.
Boko Haram pledges allegiance to ISIL.
Yes, the Shiite militia's are just as much a problem as ISIL, if they continue to target members of the Sunni community.
The problem is, what to do about it? We can't just leave ISIL continue on, and no one in DC is seriously thinking of putting our troops back on the ground in Iraq or Syria. At least not in force.
The idea that we or the Mossad are behind ISIL is ridiculous, but it is typical of the paranoia some people feel in that region. That is a theory that just makes no sense.
I've been battling the crud that's been going around. I thought maybe I'd luck out and avoid it this year Oh well...
"…but it is typical of the paranoia some people feel in that region."
More than just ‘some’ people… We have read articles which claim that it is a majority opinion in Iraq and all across the Arabian Muslim portion of the world. A majority of the Saudi will tell you that the Jews were behind 09/11 (probably a majority of all Arabs). It would serve us well to remember that the parties we're dealing with over there are not entirely rational actors.
Looks like the Russians are charging a couple of Chechens with Nemtsov's murder.
Hmmm...his daughter said it wasn't a surprise.
P.S.
Nice and neatly wrapped up.
"Looks like the Russians are charging a couple of Chechens…"
I saw that yesterday. As far as I know, our intelligence services have no evidence on the subject, one way or another.
Lynnette: "Nice and neatly wrapped up."
Not yet it ain't. But I take your comment to mean that you buy into the storyline where Putin ordered the murder of a rival/critic and the "nice and neatly wrapped up" comment was meant as you saying the arrest is a frame. Correct?
And on that topic, no Lee, I don't think any "evil merkins" were the killers either, regardless of what Winefalcon (as you call him) alludes to.
Possibly an Islamist act, since Nemtsov was an outspoken critic of Islamism and one of 'em self declared Charlies.
Possibly (but IMO unlikely) a false flag trying to pin it on Putin, but in that case I'd suspect local anti-Putinists rather than the CIA.
Possibly pro-Putin agents killing off a nuisance to them. But in that case I'd rather believe it was an unsanctioned act rather than a state sponsored killing.
Possibly a score-settling where we know nothing about the motive.
Many possibilities, but I very much doubt it was sanctioned by any state at all. Not the Russkies, not the Merkins, not the Ukies.
That'd be my best guesswork.
I notice that my Internet pattern has changed since I bought my first iPad a while ago. I love the thingy since it's so very usable for reading and viewing online stuff, and perfect to bring along on travels. But because it's not very usable for typing I have been much less inclined to post comments or writing emails longer than a sentence or two (I'm on my PC now).
In case you were wondering about my short comments and reluctance to follow up on them that's part of the answer.
"…reluctance to follow up on them…"
I suppose that would be a preemptive explanation for you avoiding any explanation of your promotion of the idea that…
"…it was an unsanctioned act rather than a state sponsored killing."
Post Script:
I further suppose that by asserting it was likely not a ‘state sponsored killing’ you meant to say you believe Putin wasn't behind it; you intended to absolve him personally.
I just don't believe he'd be stupid 'nuff to pull a stunt like that when his popularity numbers are so high. What would be his angle? Killing a non-threat just for the sake of it? To prove he's running the show? (no one doubts that anyway). For spite? I just can't see a motive there.
Plus, while I do believe that harsh actions such as targetted killings may very well be options Putin might consider, I don't believe he's the sort to take such actions on a whim, unless he considered them absolutely vital.
I can't absolve him (duh!), but I don't believe he had a hand in this murder.
Do you? And if so based on what?
I think the London murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 gives serious weight to the theory that Putin will take out people who are not an immediate threat to him on the account of motives you ‘just can't see’.
But because it's not very usable for typing I have been much less inclined to post comments or writing emails longer than a sentence or two (I'm on my PC now).
I looked at those when I bought my new computer and decided against one because of that reason. Plus I simply liked the bigger screen for viewing videos. But I can see where an IPad would be nice for travel.
But I take your comment to mean that you buy into the storyline where Putin ordered the murder of a rival/critic and the "nice and neatly wrapped up" comment was meant as you saying the arrest is a frame. Correct?
When investigating a murder motive is one criteria, and as Lee pointed out a number of critics of Putin have met untimely ends. Of course, that in itself is not proof that Putin ordered the hit. But a proper investigation would consider the possibility. But that will not happen.
That the suspects are Chechens, who have been opposed to Putin as well, does appear to kill two birds with one stone for Putin, though. Hence my comment.
"[A] number of critics of Putin have met untimely ends."
That wraps it up under a fairly benign description.
Conventional wisdom is that, while the Ukrainian war has been expensive for Russia, it's been even worse on the Ukraine. Kiev will run out of money for the war long before Moscow does. Something nobody's much mentioned is that the breakaway, Russian-speaking regions, Crimea and the Donbass Region, have run out of money already, and the Russians ain't ponying up any cash to keep things running.
Lynnette:
"I looked at those when I bought my new computer and decided against one because of that reason. Plus I simply liked the bigger screen for viewing videos. But I can see where an IPad would be nice for travel."
I see the iPad as a complement and not a substitute for a computer. It took me a while to get on the tablet-train but I have to say I really like it. Given you have a functioning wifi in your home it's great. The best thing it it starts up immediately and you can browse the web during commmercial breaks and such. Short periods of time where you just need something to do or to look something up. And since most decent hotels, airports and the like have wifi these days it's very convenient while travelling.
I anticipate that soon wifi will also be available on most buses, trains and airplanes, and a tablet will be a great thing for commuters then.
Plus, even though I went for the premium priced new iPad, instead of a low cost tablet, it was still pretty cheap. 4000 Sek, which is less than $500. Very good value in my opinion.
Lynnette:
"When investigating a murder motive is one criteria, and as Lee pointed out a number of critics of Putin have met untimely ends. Of course, that in itself is not proof that Putin ordered the hit. But a proper investigation would consider the possibility. But that will not happen."
Well, I can't really disagree with any of that.
Still, in this case my gut feeling is that Putin had no direct hand in the murder. However well that would play into the agenda of some parties. I am well aware he's ruthless, but I am also quite sure he's not stupid. I just can't see a motive that's credible for Putin to order a murder such as this (even if I don't put it past him to order a murder).
"That the suspects are Chechens, who have been opposed to Putin as well, does appear to kill two birds with one stone for Putin, though."
As for the Chechen angle Putin and Kadyrov are close allies today and Kadyrov has fairly strong support back home. Most chechens appear sick and tired of the rabid Islamists who fought Russia, and the chechen security services have all but eliminated them by now.
Myself I think Putin was not too pleased to learn the suspected killers were chechens, since he's been cultivating the notion of "brotherhood" between ethnic russians and ethnic chechens in a shared Russia. He would have no desire to antagonize chechens or to antagonize russians against chechens. So no, I don't agree with you at all that there are any two birds killed with a stone here.
"I just can't see a motive that's credible for Putin to order a murder
such as this…"
What motive do you see for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko that would not be at least matched in the case of Nemtsov?
In evidence of Americans' extreme ‘outrage fatigue’ over the Republican Congress' anti-Obama on everything stances… Two days after 47 of 55 Republican senators signed and sent a letter to Iran's ayatollahs, in an effort to scuttle ongoing six-party diplomatic talks seeking an agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons for Iran, the majority of the American press is skimming lightly over that outrage and instead harrying the still developing story about Hillary Clinton's e-mails.
That's what they think will get them eyes on their reporting. More unprecedented and outrageous conduct by the Republican Congress is, well, just more of the same.
Michael J. Totten says: Guarantee the Kurds' security and leave Arab Iraq to the Arabs.
Totten and I often disagree; not this time.
Interesting article in wapo about IS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/the-islamic-state-is-fraying-from-within/2015/03/08/0003a2e0-c276-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html?tid=sm_tw
Lee, the Totten piece was iinteresting. I feel incclined to agree with it. Not that it would be easy or come about smoothly but partitioning is probably the least bad option.
Who was it that first seriously argued for a three-way partitioning way back when, was it Biden or Lieberman? I can't remember and Google only gives me recent articles about it. But I do remember someone of influence (in the US) raising the topic quite a few years ago. Can you remember who it was?
Crimea and the Donbass Region, have run out of money already, and the Russians ain't ponying up any cash to keep things running.
You break it you own it. Isn't that what they say?
"…was it Biden or Lieberman?"
It was Joe Biden. 2006 op-ed with a woman named Leslie Gelb (I think Leslie was a woman--it's occasionally a male name too, and I'm not familiar with this particular Leslie)
It seems Marcus is not interested in explaining why Putin would order the murder of a guy who was no more than an expatriate gadfly in London, but would balk at taking out Nemtsov, who's been a persistent thorn in his side.
So, let's go at it another way…
"…but I am also quite sure he's not stupid."
What's stupid about it? His numbers are high in Russia because he's viewed as a strongman leader, takes no shit from nobody. Most of Putin's supporters would have no particular problem with him taking out Nemtsov (they might object to him being dumb enough to get caught, but the chances of getting caught were slim, we have mobsters successfully pulling off hits routinely, and they don't have Putin's resources, and the chances that whoever might have caught Putin would survive the capture were even slimmer).
Let's assume that Putin was behind it. Where are the unfortunate consequences for Putin, other than lurking in Marcus' sometimes too fertile imagination to be pulled out as excuses for Marcus’ apologist stance?
While Ukraine isn't Afghanistan we are seeing some similar problems for the Russians with this latest land quest. At least in terms of finances. I have always said that it would be expensive for the Russians.
I anticipate that soon wifi will also be available on most buses, trains and airplanes, and a tablet will be a great thing for commuters then.
Here it seems like everyone's eyes are plastered to their phones. People's disconnect from the real life world at times seems total. As this video shows. In this case they are talking about texting, but so many people access the internet via their phones that it still seems applicable.
Still, in this case my gut feeling is that Putin had no direct hand in the murder. However well that would play into the agenda of some parties. I am well aware he's ruthless, but I am also quite sure he's not stupid.
I suppose it would depend on what the real motivation for the hit was.
I just can't see a motive that's credible for Putin to order a murder such as this (even if I don't put it past him to order a murder).
Motives aren't always obvious. For me Putin being behind it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility.
I'll have to finish the comments later...gotta run.
Lee: "It seems Marcus is not interested in explaining why Putin would order the murder of a guy who was no more than an expatriate gadfly in London, but would balk at taking out Nemtsov, who's been a persistent thorn in his side."
Litvinenko was seen as a traitor and defector from the FSB (formerly KGB). It's quite possible that Putin a former KGB officer himself sanctioned or even ordered that kill. It's also possible the FSB acted without him knowing about it.
Litvinenko was not just a mere opposition leader, he was a former insider. Who knows what he knew and might have spilled?
Also, Litvinenko lived in the UK and could not be get at through the Russian courts.
I can't really see that these two cases are similar other than they were both murdered.
IF Putin wanted Nemtsov taken down I'd rather expect Nemtsov to be arrested, charged, found guilty of some real or imagined crime, and then sent into the Russian penal system. I doubt he'd just plain murder him.
Anyway, we're just guessing here, both you and I.
I'm not guessing. I've not offered an opinion on whether or not Putin killed Nemtsov (had him killed). But, killing Nemtsov fits with Putin's known patterns and practice (or at least widely presumed just from historical events--way too consistent a pattern to be accidental). He's got a history of taking out persons who irritate him with their opposition even if they pose no immediate or obvious threat. The chances of there being any untoward consequences for Putin as a consequence of such an action are extremely low, approaching zero. These things happen to be true.
It also happens to be true that the chances that the FSB ordered a hit in downtown London in broad daylight without clearing that with Putin (once head of the FSB) approaches zero. Putin does not allow that sort of independent power center to exist in his Russia.
Hillary Clinton has just made a public statement (prior to taking questions which questions she's still fielding) to the effect that she used her personal e-mail account for State Department business because she already had one (1) account, and didn't want another one, and she only had the one (1) account. If I understood the rest of her statement correctly, she also said that all her incoming e-mails went first through the official State Department servers and then on to the personal server the Clintons' had at their house, and her outgoing e-mail went through the State Department servers also.
That should probably put an end to the public hyperventilating, if it's true. It probably won't.
I got a chance to hear that replayed. Hillary said she said her practice was to send intra-government e-mails only to government e-mail accounts, no sending to private accounts. (The e-mails would therefore be captured on government computers upon receipt rather than upon sending--her server didn't actually route through the government server for outgoing e-mails, but the government servers should have captured her official e-mails anyway, assuming she was telling the truth about not sending to private accounts.)
A brief review of the morning headlines on the major American political reviews reveals that the dominant story of the day is Hillary Clinton's e-mails. I am mildly surprised there could be so much written about so little factual information, but only mildly surprised. I find myself mostly just not interested in the subject, but I think I may have to get myself ready for a long period of trying to sort past those headlines to find articles of any substance on subjects of any importance.
That was an interesting WaPo piece that Marcus put up, although the authors did acknowledge that ISIS' occasional morale troubles don't seem to be any threat to their hold on power in the areas they currently control.
As a practical matter they will almost certainly always come up short of the romantic expectations of their followers.
I've said for a long time now that they hit the limits of their natural appeal and natural borders with that first surge. They'll never conquer Shia southern Iraq; probably can never take Baghdad, and certainly won't be able to hold if they do take it briefly. (Pissed off Zeyad with that information back when.)
They don't have the appeal to the Kurds and the bloody, grinding years' long program to dislodge them from those mountains is out of the question for them. It'd lose them their romantic cachet and with it their recruiting power. It'd be hard on the Kurds (so our Arab and Turkish ‘allies’ would probably approve) but they'd likely lose that war in the end, even if no one came to the Kurds defense.
So, I conclude again that we're likely looking at a years' long program to dislodge ISIS from Zeyad's Sunnistan with a lot of bloodshed and destruction yet to go.
Here is a short look inside the last years of bin-Laden's al-Qaeda operation. There's a book here for somebody to write.
Zeyad has a new post up. I haven't had a chance to look at the video yet. Still catching up on stuff...
And
this guy has a point. ISIS' economy is based largely on looting, which requires continued expansion, which is probably out of the question for ISIS for the foreseeable future. Their secondary funding source, ransom, is also dropping off as persons from countries willing to pay ransom seem to be wisely avoiding the areas of ISIS control these days.
Lee:
"I've said for a long time now that they [IS] hit the limits of their natural appeal and natural borders with that first surge. They'll never conquer Shia southern Iraq; probably can never take Baghdad, and certainly won't be able to hold if they do take it briefly. (Pissed off Zeyad with that information back when.)
They don't have the appeal to the Kurds and the bloody, grinding years' long program to dislodge them from those mountains is out of the question for them. It'd lose them their romantic cachet and with it their recruiting power. It'd be hard on the Kurds (so our Arab and Turkish ‘allies’ would probably approve) but they'd likely lose that war in the end, even if no one came to the Kurds defense.
So, I conclude again that we're likely looking at a years' long program to dislodge ISIS from Zeyad's Sunnistan with a lot of bloodshed and destruction yet to go."
Yup, that sums it up pretty well. IS can cause a lot of mayhem but can't really go any further. Possibly they over reached when they declared their "state" as they now have to at least pretend to govern the areas they control.
There's the third front that you left out and that'd be them taking Damascus and toppling Assad. I can't really see that happening either. Assad may yet be forced out or whacked but I'd imagin that that would come years from now and not by the hand of IS, or maybe it won't come at all.
They, IS, are pretty much doomed. The question is how to best further that development and doing so while trying to limit the inevitable mayhem to a minimum.
I agree with much of your previous comments about helping the Kurds help themselves and the neighborhood in general. Seems to me like they are the ONE party you could arm up and not really risk a backlash from it (though Turkey would have to be brought or dragged on board in some fashion). Also if you arm the Kurds they will actually use that weaponry and not tucktail, run and abandon it to IS, that's pretty much a given.
Arm up the Kurds, hope that Obama can force/coerce the Iranians into some sort of agreeable agreement and get them to shouldre backing Baghdad (which they are already but maybe not in the right fashion) and let Sunnistan sort out its own mess. See how long it takes them to turn on IS and then back any sane party that might appear, sort of an awakening part 2.
"There's the third front that you left out and that'd be them taking
Damascus and toppling Assad."
Screw Assad. Syria's history. It was a nation contrived by Europeans to keep the peace between England and France concerning rivalries over ‘their’ so-called spheres-of-influence in the Middle East. It's gone now. Assad is, at most, leader of a Shia Arab enclave on the rockier borders of the eastern Mediterranian, without the surf and sea-shore appeal of Beruit, Lebanon. In the real world he's an Iranian puppet these days, holding an Iranian outpost for them. He doesn't even have control over ‘his own’ military--that's been run by the Iranians for nigh onto two years now (since Kasim Suliemanie reversed their fortunes, in concert with Nasrulah's fellas out of southern Lebanon). Whether or not Assad stays is no longer a matter of international interest; he's puppet only over the Shia's western mountainous regions these days anyway. Syria no longer exists. Iraq probably doesn't either, not in anything approaching its post-WWI borders. I think Iraq as it was previously drawn is almost certainly doomed; the opportunity for a federated Iraq has passed--window closed; Syria is already gone. Assad is a matter of local interest only (except to the extent that he still theoretically holds title over the Russian base in Tartus).
"(though Turkey would have to be brought or dragged on board in
some fashion)"
Turkey would have to be neutralized--kept from attacking Kurdistan. Whether or not they like it or don't is no longer a matter of concern to us. Eroğan has obstructed us enough that we no longer need to keep him happy as a pretended ally, we merely need to stop him from screwing with the big picture items. (This will be an ongoing antagonism as he still holds hope of making Turkey into the center of power in what he thinks is the coming Second Caliphate, the new Turkish Empire.)
I'm thinking that there is not going to be any easy solution to the problem of ISIS and Iraqi unity, or disunity, as the case may be.
ISIS has already gained followers in other extremists groups in other areas of the world, such as Africa.
And Iraqis will have to all agree one way or the other on unity or no, otherwise there will only be continual fighting.
I do agree that the Kurds are our natural allies in the region. At least they seem to have been able to establish a more functioning government in their area.
"Whether or not Assad stays is no longer a matter of international interest; he's puppet only over the Shia's western mountainous regions these days anyway. Syria no longer exists."
It matters to IS though, which was my point about there being three distinct fronts for them to fight on. The kurds, the shia in Iraq and the Iran/hezbollah-supported regime in Syria. At least in their propaganda they brag they're gonna take Damascus.
Assad is irrelevant to the ‘third front’ you identify; Assad could flee tonight and the ‘third front’ would remain. Those people are Alawites and Druze and Christians, infidels to ISIS and ISIS' long-term goal is to wipe them out, which guarantees they will fight on, at their borders anyway, with or without Assad; but that's long-term, and ISIS gonna find themselves rather preoccupied for the foreseeable future with their short and medium term problems.
The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a tweet (he does Twitter) concerning the Republican senators' letter to his government (apparently the mail got through). As the ayatollah tells it, the letter indicates that the U.S. ‘has a habit of a deception and treason’ and ‘is indicative of [a] collapse of political ethics’ in the United States. MSNBC. It seems that the aytollah has taken the letter to indicate that we are not negotiating in good faith.
He also took note of Netanyahu's address to Congress, calling Netanyahu a ‘zionist clown’
"At least they seem to have been able to establish a more functioning
government in their area."
We should probably remember, while allying up with the Kurds, that the Kurdish Regional Government is rather corrupt by western standards, with a somewhat marginal commitment to the rule of law and to democracy. (Although it is a beacon of virtue on all these counts by regional standards, so some allowances may be in order.)
Yes, I do understand the corruption issue is still a factor in the Kurdish government. But they are in a better place than others, as you added in your comment.
It's easy for us, who are at a distance, to look at the Middle East almost as a chess board and mentally shift pieces this way and that to try to figure a way out of the mess. But whatever ideas we may come up with may not work out as we may think. There are always unexpected factors that crop up to affect the way things fall.
ISIL is a long way from defeated in Iraq and Syria. Splitting Iraq may only encourage remnants of ISIL to remain, to fight on. In any case, people on the ground would have to agree to it.
It's interesting that Marcus should bring up the fact that Biden was actually for a partition. One of those areas where he and the President apparently disagree, as Obama seems so adamant about Iraq remaining in one piece.
... ‘is indicative of [a] collapse of political ethics’ in the United States.
Khamenei is not exactly someone I would normally agree with on much, but I have to say this is close to what I think. Sure, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but you don't try to undercut your own negotiating team to make a political point.
I will have to hunt up a list of those who signed. Now I am curious.
Some Republicans are having second thoughts apparently.
And then there is this take on it:
Republican aides were taken aback by the response to what what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.
“The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations,” said a top GOP Senate aide.
Lighthearted? Cheeky? Sense of humor? What, are these "top" GOP aides 12? We are in serious negotiations over a very serious matter and they think it's time for humor? Whoa, maybe it's time they started looking for some new "aides". Because these guys experience level seems somewhat lacking.
"And then there is this take on it:"
I take it as an indication of intrenched into their political thinking is the notion of slamming Obama on all things. It's just ‘what they do’. It never occurred to them to think it through for its potential to do other than harm Obama, the be all and end all of most of their political maneuverings. By their lights, slamming Obama is always the right thing to do. How could anyone ever think otherwise? (They will try to transfer that reflex reaction to Hillary should she win the next election.)
PBS just did a fairly long piece on the upcoming Israeli elections. According to their correspondent, Netanyahu, who was nursing a narrow but significant lead he hoped to cement down with his triumphal appearance in the U.S. Congress (Likud Party campaign ads running every few minutes showing a packed Republican house cheering him on). It seems, however, that the pre-election polls have tightened instead, and PBS is calling it a ‘nail biter’ now, up for grabs.
Even dissing the President isn't a sure thing to boost your popularity.
I'm not sure how much I agree with the ayatollah there. It seems that his point was that the United States was an unreliable negotiating partner. This would go some way towards justifying Iran pulling out of the negotiations. And, that's what the ayatollah's looking for, a way to make the failure to achieve a deal the fault of the Americans, thus politically justifying a general European abandonment of the sanctions.
And it's the sanctions that are responsible for Iran not yet having a bomb (with some help from some black ops by both Israel and the U.S.).
The Iranians are mostly looking to get out from under the sanctions--blaming the breakdown of negotiations on the U.S.A. is looking like a good idea to them. Arguing that the Republican senators' letter is evidence of bargaining in bad faith by the U.S might just do the trick. This is what Obama was referring to when he accused the Republicans of making common cause, a tactical alliance at least, with the Iranian hardliners who want the bomb and would like to have the end of the sanctions anyway.
Early morning news (CBS broadcast news) says ISIS has formally accepted the earlier pledge of allegiance from Boko Haram. I'm not sure what all exactly that entails, but it does make the news.
"The promo on NTV’s website offered a taste of the latest
installment, starring Nemtsov, exiled ex-tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
and anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny: ‘How is the “Russian
Maidan” being prepared? Why do our revolutionaries make trips to
Switzerland? What are they learning from their instructors in Kiev, and
why do they meet with foreign diplomats in strictest secrecy?’
"Then came the news of Nemtsov’s shocking murder, a mere hundred
yards away from the Kremlin.
"Hours later, the promo was pulled from NTV’s site and the program
itself vanished from the TV lineup. As the official media scrambled for
damage control, Nemtsov, the reviled ‘fifth columnist,’ received a
quick posthumous makeover as ‘the good dissident’—the better to
spin his tragic death as the likely work of Russia’s enemies.
"This week, amid growing doubts about the official story of Chechen
killers seeking revenge for alleged insults to Islam, Russian TV
punditry seems to be doubling down on speculation that Nemtsov’s
murder was masterminded by the West or by its proxies in Ukraine."
Dailey Beast
The original Kremlin line that it was dissident Chechens behind it (as opposed to Putin-loyal Chechens as the hired hit men) seems to be falling kinda flat in Russia, and so it's increasingly being spun as an Evil Merkin plot, or maybe even the Ukrainians.
David Ignatius on the Republicans' Iran letter. (Ignatius is rather more fond of the old ‘nuke ‘em ‘til they glow’ approach than I am, but he is what I'd consider a sane foreign policy hawk.)
it's increasingly being spun as an Evil Merkin plot,...
Huh! We are such a useful scapegoat. Well, us and Israel, of course.
Post a Comment