The British Are Meddling! The British Are Meddling!

It's increasingly obvious that it's the British, rather than the Russians, who are meddling in American politics.    The British are once again using "fake intelligence" to influence American politics.

After the 9/11  attack the British used fake intelligence about WMD in Iraq to get President George W. Bush to help them invade Iraq.   The British treated rumors about WMD as if they were proven facts.

Now they are using fake intelligence to undermine President Donald Trump.     Patrick Cockburn in the "London Independent"   says the charges about Trump's alleged association with the Russians are based on information that is at least as unreliable as the claims about Iraq's WMD.

The British may be trying to oust Trump because they know they cannot manipulate him the way they manipulated George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  They used fake intelligence to get Bush's help in invading Iraq.  I don't know how they tricked Obama into helping them invade Libya.  This century is only about 18 years old and the British have already gotten us into two stupid wars.  We need to keep the British from using their boy Robby Mueller to force Trump out of office.

Was ISIS Behind Syria Gas Attack?

Those who claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad  used poison gas against rebels need to consider the possibility that some members of his military are ISIS sympathizers.  Considering the reaction Assad generated when he previously used nerve gas, it seems unlikely he would use gas now.  He would be unlikely to receive any benefit from using gas.

ISIS could be the biggest potential beneficiary of  using gas because of the potential of an American response against Syria.  On the eve of World War II Germany created the appearance of  a Polish attack on a German radio station to justify  a German invasion of Poland.  ISIS could have had its operatives replace regular Syrian munitions with poison gas so that the Syrian government would appear to be responsible for using the gas.

I'm sure ISIS would love to get President Donald Trump to repeat President Barack Obama's huge blunder in Libya.  Obama created  a political vacuum in Libya by overthrowing the government without the presence of a viable replacement.   Terrorists quickly took advantage of the opportunity to operate in Libya.   ISIS gained supporters from those upset about American and European "imperialism".

Syrian rebels don't appear any more capable of controlling the country than Libyan rebels were at the time of the Western invasion.   American overthrow of the Syrian government would give ISIS an opportunity  to replace the geographic base it is losing in Iraq.

Westerners sometimes ask why people in the Middle East hate western nations so much.   The people of the Middle East resent Western intervention in their countries.  The areas that today are the site of countries with names like "Egypt", "Syria", "Iran" and "Iraq" were  the locations of the capitals of great empires when Europeans were too primitive to have governments.   ISIS and other terrorist organizations claim they can restore a Middle Eastern empire.

Those who claim Adolf Hitler didn't use poison gas in WWII ignore the gas chambers Hitler used to murder Jews. 

Can Old Lady Clinton Understand Benghazi Significance?

The thing that most bothers me about Hillary Clinton's comments about Benghazi is that she doesn't seem to understand why people are concerned about her mishandling of the Benghazi situation.   She doesn't seem to understand that her mishandling of the situation allowed al Qaeda to win a major victory at Benghazi by killing the top U.S. official in Libya.    Clinton doesn't seem to understand why her use of a private email server threatened national security.

The Obama administration had been claiming a victory every time it killed an al Qaeda leader including killing Osama bin Laden .   An intelligent Secretary of State would have wanted to prevent the enemy from being able to kill any American ambassador.  Clinton foolishly decided to make it as easy as  possible for al Qaeda to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens.  Her handling of the situation would have made more sense if she had wanted him to die.

Clinton's   attempt to make a diplomatic facility at Benghazi permanent was the biggest American battlefield mistake since the Battle of Hamburger Hill in the Vietnam War.  The war on terror has made much of the world a potential battle field.   The enemy can attack any where, at any time even in San Bernardino California.

In May, 1969, the commanding general of the 101st Airborne made a foolish decision to try to take a well defended but worthless piece of real estate that became known as Hamburger Hill.  The Americans suffered heavy casualties and failed to take the hill which the enemy then abandoned.  

Clinton had ample warning that the ambassador would be in eminent danger in Benghazi.  The consulate had already suffered two minor attacks.  There had been attacks on the Tunisian consulate and the U.N. Special Envoy's convoy.   The International Red Cross closed its office after it was attacked.   The British government withdrew its diplomats  from Benghazi after an attack on its ambassador's convoy.

Clinton's critics have focused on the inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate and ignored the fact that the facility shouldn't have been defended in the first place.   A competent Secretary of State would have followed the example of the International Red Cross and the British government and abandoned a  building that wasn't worth the loss of American lives.

Clinton's use of a less secure private email server may have made it possible for al Qaeda leaders to learn the United States wouldn't defend the consulate

The advice of the old gambler in the Kenny Rogers song "The Gambler" applies to war as well as poker

"You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run."

  The United States should have walked away from Benghazi.    There is no shame in walking a way from a battle that cannot be won.  In the early years of World War II the British army walked away from  France and the United States army walked away from the Philippines because the locations couldn't be defended at that time.

Is bin Laden's Death Good or Bad?

I grew up watching old Hollywood westerns in which the Indians always stopped fighting if their chief was killed, or at least they stopped until they selected a new chief. The killing of Osama bin Laden may provide a great deal of emotional satisfaction for Americans, but it won't necessarily improve the chances of defeating al Qaeda. The killing might even invigorate al Qaeda.

I was serving in Vietnam when North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh died. His death didn't change what was happening in the war.

Bin Laden's presence in an area far removed from the action indicates he might have become little more than a spiritual adviser to al Qaeda with operations controlled by others. If so his death at the hands of the Americans wouldn't affect operations, but his conversion to a martyr could provide a new rallying point.

(Incidentally, criticism of Pakistanis for not realizing he was at that compound ignores the fact that Pakistan has far more drug dealers / smugglers than terrorist leaders and drug dealers might also prefer to live in a fortress.)

Al Qaeda has been relatively ineffective for years, possibly because bin Laden has not provided effective leadership. Subordinates might have been afraid to challenge him because of his past role with the organization. His death could allow a more dynamic, imaginative, aggressive leader to take over. When a shrub stops growing, pruning off the old wood can give it new life.

Existing al Qaeda leaders might compete for the top position by conducting terrorist missions. Other organizations such as Hamas might seek a role in the new al Qaeda.

Perhaps members would be more willing to seek an alliance with an existing nation, particularly Libya which is fighting European "crusaders". An alliance wasn't practical before bin Laden's death because Qaddafi would both have wanted to be the leader. Qaddafi previously supported international terrorism.

The killing of Qaddafi's son and grandchildren shortly before the killing of bin Laden gives Libya and al Qaeda a common desire for revenge. Qaddafi can offer financing to al Qaeda in exchange for assistance fighting the NATO backed contras, or whatever the rebels are calling themselves.

Libyan rebel leader Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi is an al Qaeda veteran and potentially take over if he came to power in Libya and was able to divert part of its oil revenue to al Qaeda.

Some in the Pakistan military may be so upset at the embarrassment caused by conduct of such an attack near their capital that they will give advanced weapons to al Qaeda and the Taliban. We can only hope that the Pakistan government adds extra security for its nuclear weapons.

Pakistan is not a tiny banana republic like Venezuela. It has half the population of the U.S. and the world's 7th largest military, including nuclear armed missiles.

Pakistan is a democracy which means the government must consider popular sentiment which could become more anti-U.S. as a result of the raid. If Obama's critics are correct about him visiting Pakistan in 1981 as a student using an Indonesian passport (possibly under the name of Barry Soetoro or Barry Durham) and Pakistan had a record of that visit, Pakistan could embarrass him by releasing the information. I don't know if embarrassing Obama after he embarrassed Pakistan by violating its sovereignty would be enough to quiet any public outcry against the U.S.

Obama's decision to secretly bury bin Laden at sea could be a blunder. The action sounds like a coverup because when criminals "bury" a body in the water it's to prevent discovery of the crime.

Al Qaeda could have tried to find someone who looked like bin Laden and could imitate his voice to make a video claiming the U.S. killed the wrong man. Fortunately for Obama, al Qaeda has decided it would rather have bin Laden be a martyr.

Steve Landman's blog is claiming that the man killed in the raid cannot be bin Laden because he died of natural causes years ago. Al Qaeda would have had an incentive to keep the death a secret because it needed him alive as a rallying point. A death by natural causes would have tarnished his image, but "murder" by the U.S. provides a better rallying point. This theory could explain the lack of adequate security around the compound, including an apparent lack of antiaircraft weapons. If the man wasn't really bin Laden, his death would only benefit al Qaeda.

It would have been better to have had someone other than bin Laden's wife and U.S. experts provide identification for the body. His wife might have identified the body as his so the U.S. would stop looking for him or to prevent discovery of a false identity. It appears the U.S. won't be hurt by the failure to get better idenfication of the body, but an intelligent president wouldn't have taken unnecessary chances.

Burying him at sea won't prevent someone from establishing a shrine to him, but instead would allow a shrine to be build any place, including the place where he was killed, or in their view where he became a martyr..

The U.S. could have avoided the possibility of a shrine at his grave site by turning the body over to family members who had disowned him for burial at an secret site in Saudi Arabia which had revoked his citizenship.. Acceptance of the body by family members, who would not have been identified, would have provided more reliable identification of it.

Releasing of photos of the shooting won't provide proof he was killed. Hollywood routinely simulates the killing of actors in movies. Jay Leno has occasionally shown doctored videos showing bin Laden at various locations, including the White House. Release of the photos would be more likely to inflame his supporters than to prove he was killed.

Fortunately, Obama's release of his long form birth certificate prior to the death of bin Laden gives Obama more credibility than he would have had. Without that release, al Qaeda members might have compared the "missing" body to his missing birth certificate.

Trump Stood Firm, Obama Blinked

Donald Trump in recent weeks had been advising President Barack Obama to produce his Hawaiian birth certificate to prove he had one. Truimp refused to let journalists force him into dropping the subject. Obama had been refusing to give in until April 27th when Obama blinked.

Trump recognized that a president cannot have the confidence of the people if he withholds information for no apparent reason. The document Obama released on the 27th doesn't contain any information that needed to be kept secret.

Trump's willingness to stand firm to force Obama to do what he should have done long ago demonstrates Trump's leadership ability. Trump is more likely to stand firm against foreign leaders than Obama who let European leaders con him into a foolish Libyan adventure that has raised gas prices.

Obama is an attorney and shouldn't have needed to be reminded that an attorney is most likely to win if he presents the best possible evidence to the court, or (as an elected official) to the voters.

During the last two years the failure to provide the long form birth certificate has been a major distraction which has created doubts about whether Obama was even qualified to be president. Obama has been oblivious to the fact that his unwillingness to release the document was hampering his presidency.

If Trump wants to continue an offensive against Obama, he should focus on Libya and ask what the real reason for American involvement is. Trump might also ask Obama how NATO plans to stabilize the situation if Qaddafi is forced out of office. Al Qaeda attempted take to advantage of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein to take over Iraq and can be expected to attempt to take over Libya is Qaddafi is forced out. Has Obama secretly promised U.S. troops to keep al Qaeda out of Libya?

Europeans Reverting to Barbarism

The ancestors of today's Europeans couldn't understand the significance of what they were doing when they vandalized Rome. The modern descendants of those Vandals are capable of understanding the significance of their actions.

The Vandals who sacked Rome had nothing to lose from the destruction. The Vandals who are sacking Libya have a lot to lose from the destruction.

The destruction of the Libyan military is creating an opportunity for al Qaeda to take over Libya. Al Qaeda is a long time adversary of Muammar Qaddafi, but had been too weak in Libya to challenge him.

NATO's attacks on Qaddafi's military are rapidly changing that balance. Afghan war veteran Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi is already taking advantage of the situation to lead the anti-Qaddafi effort in Darnah. He potentially could use his combat experience to take over the rebel movement.

If al Qaeda takes over Libya, it will have access to oil money and perhaps gain an opportunity to blackmail European governments to get out of Afghanistan. If al Qaeda takes advantage of NATO's overthrow of Qaddafi to take over Libya many NATO leaders will join their Arab counterparts in the unemployment line.

Some might even face criminal prosecution for treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy). In the U.S. a latter day Joe McCarthy might emerge and use the incident to attack individuals who had nothing to due with the decision.

British Prime Minister David Cameron would likely be classified with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who gave in to Adolf Hitler's demands to obtain what he called "peace in our time".

NATO is risking creating anarchy. Anarchy tends to produce tyrants The difficulties of replacing anarchy after the fall of a tyrant can produce a new tyrant like Napoleon or Lenin. Anarchy in Libya could also cause a cutoff of oil until someone restores order.

The U.S. is still in Iraq because of the difficulties of restoring a stable government. The American presence prevented al Qaeda from taking over Iraq as it attempted to do even with the American presence.

NATO needs to be preparing to move a peacekeeping force into Libya to replace the government NATO is destroying. Marines from NATO nations should be on the ships offshore now or be in route to them. American paratroopers in Italy and the paratroopers of other NATO members should be loading planes with equipment and preparing their gear so they can take off at any time. Turkey would be the best choice to control post-Qaddafi Libya because it's a Muslim nation. .

Who Will Administer Libya?

Have the Allies decided who will be in charge of preserving order and providing government services between the time Muammar Qaddafi is overthrown and a new government can be established?

Democracies don't miraculously appear after the overthrow of tyrants. Working out differences about what type of government is desired takes time. Someone has to run the interim government until differences can be resolved like the U.S attempted to do in Iraq.

Iraq isn't the only country that has had trouble developing a democratic government to replace a tyrant. Examples from European history demonstrate that the difficulties of establishing democratic government to replace tyrants.

The overthrow of the French monarchy in the late 18th Century was followed by various governments until a new strongman named Napoleon was able to establish a stable government. He then decided to expand the size of his empire to include most of Europe into Russia.

The fall of the Russian monarchy late during World War I also eventually produced a tyrant with a desire for empire. An initial attempt at democracy failed and the country descended into chaos with the communist party led by Lenin eventually conquering the country. His successor Joseph Stalin used the situation after World War II to expand the country's boundaries into Eastern Europe.

The Allied attack on the Libyan military means it will not be available to reestablish order even if people would accept its leaders after their efforts to keep Qaddafi in office. The problems other governments in the area are having mean they cannot assist with reestablishing order in Libya. One or more of the Allies will have send in a caretaker force to run things.

Qaddafi has many loyal supporters, particularly among those who have benefited from his rule, who might use guerrilla tactics against the interim government as happened in Iraq. Al Qaeda will certainly be interested in attempting to take advantage of the situation and use terrorism to force the interim government out as happened in Iraq.

The lawlessness in Somalia demonstrates what can happen without a government capable of establishing order.

Mr. O'Bombers' War

Barack Obama who ran on a platform of ending his predecessor's wars has apparently decided he wants his own war. As candidate Obama, he felt Congress should have a role in such decisions. As President O'Bomber, he thinks he can ignore Congress.

Like his predecessors O'Bomber is starting out with a bombing campaign. He hasn't said whether he will send Marines back to the shores of Tripoli if the bombing campaign fails to cause a surrender. Bombing didn't produce a surrender in Vietnam and Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi doesn't seem any more likely to relinquish power because of a bombing campaign than Saddam Hussein was.

Barack O'Bomber claims he is acting because the Libyan government has attacked those protesting the government, but Libya isn't the only government to use violence to put down protests.

Syria has been accused of using violence against protesters. Will O'Bomber also attack Syria? It would be easy considering we already have troops in neighboring Iraq. They could be moved out of Iraq and into Syria.

Will O'Bomber attack Iran which reportedly has been putting down mass protests? He could use it as an excuse to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Prior to the election O'Bomber said he considered Iran a "tiny country" even though it's the 17th most populous nation in the world with a population is 78% that of Nazi Germany, a country which conquered Europe. from the Atlantic's to near Moscow.

China has killed protesters before. Does that mean the U.S. should consider attacking China?

I'm worried that if Gaddafi does give in to the bombing campaign, O'Bomber and the other Western Imperialists will think they can do the same thing in any country with a form of government they disapprove of. That is if they are really motivated by Gaddafi's treatment of his subjects rather than his oil.

If NATO is really concerned about injustice, why didn't it intervene in Darfur?

If O'Bomber succeeds in destroying the Libyan military will he or the Europeans spend years reestablishing order setting up a new government? Or will they let it become a lawless country like Somalia"

The most disturbing aspect of O'Bomber's action is his failure to consult Congress like Lyndon Johnson did before bombing North Vietnam and George W. Bush did before bombing Saddam Hussein. Both of those presidents took the lead in getting the U.S. involved in a war. O'Bomber seems to be following the orders of the European governments who get their oil from Libya.

Regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject. Unless he formally renounced that citizenship he may still be a British subject and may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya.

Those who like to protest America involvement in foreign wars need to start protesting now instead of waiting until the Marines land in Tripoli.