I hope if there are journalism sources you trust they have at least informed you about how al Qaida and the US are fighting on the same side in this war.

And I likewise hope you are curious about who is funding and supplying al Qaida... and the necessary logistics behind it all.

You will discover that your impatience was misdirected.

A

I guess what I'm really asking is, do you require an official statement from the US government acknowledging what I said in order to be convinced or is journalism on the story acceptable?

We are talking about a formerly covert CIA operation after all.

I would appreciate an answer to those other questions too though.

I really do have to go now.
I'll be back.
A

The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest.

You can take your time but, my patience is limited.

OK.
Fine.

I am willing to explain it, but are you willing to read the info I provide?

Are you curious enough to look into it yourself?

Do you want me to do the searches for you?
If so, what sources are acceptable to you?

I've been reading CW on HuffPost for a long time, so your generalization about them is a little startling... or do you question the reliability of the info they provide from him too? HP aggregates from almost every media outlet after all... is everything tarnished by that association in your opinion?

We clearly disagree on this topic to some extent, and out of everything I've written, your only response is to question one thing.

That gives off the impression that either you accept my arguments or that your mind is made up and I am wasting my time... and it seems like the latter.

Give me a clue here as to what you are thinking.
For example, do you think Assad has a right to defend his country if attacked by a foreign force?
Or is he such a bad guy that he has relinquished that right?

I've got some things to do for a while... but I'll check back in a few hours.

A

"The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest."

Just so I know how you are approaching this...

Did you read the Greenwald article?
Did you read the article on HP?
If you don't trust them, do a Google search for the NYT article I referenced.
WaPo.
McClatchy.
Foreign Affairs.
Haaretz.

Are you curious, or would you rather not know, or don't you care?

I'm not going to hold it against you wherever you stand, but I don't want to waste my time.
You seem a little reluctant, and this shit bores the hell out of a lot of people.

A

You said: The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest.

Then, I said: I'd be very interested in knowing how you factually back up a statement like that.

I'm still waiting ... you can't wiggle out of that one!

Update

A bunch of debate stories have bumped the story on HuffPost lower down the page... about 20th now.

Here's the title and details if you don't read this until tomorrow and need to search for it...

"Pentagon Syria Program has only produced "4 or 5" fighters. But there's more to the story"
By Akbar Shahid Ahmed
Foreign Affairs Reporter- The Huffington Post
Posted 9/16/15

I'll figure out the link posting thing here soon... I know it's not difficult, I've just been putting it off.

A

"We should not ignore the role played by the Assad regimes, historically and today, in bringing Syria to its current sad state of affairs"

I specifically mentioned the Assad dictatorship...

But, like in the Greenwald article I posted for you, it is worth remembering that we partnered with Assad in a realpolitik relationship of convenience.

Taking offence at historical factors now, when we were content to ignore those things then is clear hypocrisy.

"The long and short of it, Al, is that the brutal behavior of the Assad regime in this current conflict has assured that its time in power is limited"

Well, setting aside the obligation as a ruler of a sovereign nation to defend his country from outside attack, the extremist Sunni militants doing the attacking happen to be on the US list of terror groups, and I will repeat what I've said once before... I can't blame him. Speaking for myself, I'm still a little pissed about 9/11.

Then you have to consider the brutality of those who would likely replace him.
The "moderate rebels" who post videos online of themselves cutting out and eating the heart of one of their victims, looting and blowing up cultural heritage sites, beheading captives, raping...

Then a comparison to the brutality of our "allies" in the region would seemingly be only fair.

In other words, I think you're applying a standard selectively, and one that also just happens to be in line with the neolibcon establishment who, you may have noticed, don't exactly have a track record of success or wisdom.

"I'd be very interested in knowing how you factually back up a statement like that"

Sure. Click over to HuffPost right now... about the 6th story down on the main page is a story with a headline something like "US trains 4 or 5 fighters in Syria".
The second half has some of the details about the CIA effort that has funded, trained and equipped over 10,000 fighters from bases in Jordan.
(according to this article, we are now spending a billion dollars a year... not just 400 million as I mentioned)

If you look at previous news reports, al Qaida, often referred to as al Nusra in Syria, is the "most effective fighting force" attacking Assad in the southern regions of Syria. Most of the fighters we have trained and armed have joined al Nusra or are fighting alongside them.

My original information was obtained in real time as the conflict had just begun.
This was back right before HuffPost made the switch to FB comment logins, and there was a whole crowd of folks in the comment section posting links to stories from regional media outlets, including Israeli ones, who weren't blacking out this stuff like the American media was doing.

The Spanish and Greek journalists I mentioned earlier had discovered that the CIA was buying weapons in Bosnia if I remember correctly, and then flying them from Cyprus to Jordan.

Obviously, I had no firsthand knowledge of these things, but these were multiple sources from multiple established outlets... and, about a year ago the CIA training effort was officially acknowledged... just keeping many of the sordid details quiet.
In other words, the journalists who put all the pieces of this puzzle together turned out to be right... this is not some conspiracy theory.

The internet is a wonderful thing.
And you may have noticed, this is one of my areas of interest, and I am a bit of a junkie for it.

A

The root causes of the Syrian conflict go back quite a long way, as is the case for the conflicts throughout the Middle East. We should not ignore the role played by the Assad regimes, historically and today, in bringing Syria to its current sad state of affairs.

I'd be very interested in knowing how you factually back up a statement like that.

"By the way, Al, the truth, when it comes to the Middle East, is not pleasant, anyway you wish to slice it"

Fair enough.
True about both our allies and enemies in the region.

But the US government hiding the truth from Americans is likewise an unpleasant truth.
Americans are being denied both debate and input, and most have no clue that we are partially responsible for the destruction and refugee crisis for example.
The US aiding the group that attacked us on 9/11 would not go over too well if our "leaders" were being honest.

It's also true that Syria had basically a secular government that maintained decent living standards and protected the Christian and other minority groups... who continue to support Assad to this day... protected the cultural heritage sites and was safe for tourists.

Compared to the Islamic State, I'm not sure our regime change effort was a wise course of action.

Sounds like it's still regime change or nothing, eh?

"That is the reality of the situation."

I think that means a lot more unnecessary death, destruction and expense than we've seen thus far... and an ever growing menace from IS and al Qaida.

My opinion would be to reconsider that neolibcon demand.
As I understand it, a lot of analysts in US intelligence agencies are saying exactly what I'm saying.
I'm not insisting that I'm right, just that the options to Assad are now recognized as harder to swallow.

A

The trigger for the violence was foreign militants shooting Syrian cops from within the crowds of peaceful protestors.

But the root causes were the majority Sunni unhappiness with the hereditary Assad dictatorship, Saudi aspirations for regime change, and an Israeli desire to cut off and isolate Hezbollah.

It's been reported that quite a few Israeli intelligence types were extremely reluctant about supporting the regime change effort because they were, and continue to be concerned about spillover and the type of regime that might replace Assad... but they were overruled by the politicians.

Israeli concerns are supposedly the main reason the US has refused to supply the Sunni militants with heavy weapons, and ground to air missiles... and that has allowed Assad to maintain his air advantage.

That is the reality of the situation.

Middle easterners themselves, collectively comprise the biggest obstacle to peace in their region. Middle eastern leaders, and I use that term loosely, need only look in their mirrors to see the root causes of their many difficulties.

"Now, the only pathway toward a political solution in Syria involves a transitional government"

Sounds like it's still regime change or nothing, eh?

A

What are the root causes, in your view, of the conflict in Syria?

"That support and aid have been factors from the very beginning"

Factors yes, but root cause no.
Russia, Iran and Hezbollah didn't want the war.
They were happy with Assad.

"at the beginning, the Obama administration was not calling for regime change in Syria"

True... not publicly.
But the covert effort supporting the Saudi regime change effort began long before Obama made that official US policy... and they were spinning pretty hard and keeping mum about the Saudi effort to make it appear it was an internal conflict.

I don't have author or date info, but the NYT did a piece mentioning our involvement about 4 and a half years ago... and there were articles from outlets in Greece, Spain and Lebanon detailing our arms shipments back when we were officially only supplying non-lethal aid.

The truth isn't quite as pleasant as the establishment wants us to believe.

Assad went from being a rendition partner to a target very quickly.

Hmmm.
I guess "war" is the least complicated.
I'll give that further thought though.

How has the summer been in Ontario?... other than the baseball.

I used to spend 9 days every summer at my mom's boyfriends cabin on Grindstone Lake up there... If I remember correctly it was still about 6 hours driving from the border, the last couple hours on dirt/gravel roads... Land of 1000 Lakes area or something like that.
Lots of good memories.
Outhouse, propane refrigerator, fishing, swimming most years... a couple years it was too cold... frogs, beavers, loons.

A

Of course, the aid and support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are now factors as well, but aren't in the "root causes" category.

That support and aid have been factors from the very beginning.

And,

If we are going to address the root causes, we just can't ignore our officially stated regime change policy for Syria, nor the outside backing for it.

at the beginning, the Obama administration was not calling for regime change in Syria but rather for the Syrian government to implement necessary reforms. Now, the only pathway toward a political solution in Syria involves a transitional government.

For those of us interested in ending the war in Syria, I would ask you to reconsider the establishment line that it is a "civil war".

What would you call it?

Heh. You're right, Al ... it still sounds terrible. Makes me feel 20 years older, truth be known. :)

More on civil wars, later ... after another Blue Jays victory, on the way to World Series champions ...

Who is Fred Davis?

I try not to crash conversations uninvited, but this line from one of your comments to Paula caught my attention-

"I do not believe it should be the primary focus of what will be necessary to resolve the civil war in Syria"

For those of us interested in ending the war in Syria, I would ask you to reconsider the establishment line that it is a "civil war".

The militants the Saudis sent in to start the war, and the billions that SA has been pouring into the war (which has been well documented at this point) and the $400 million the US has been spending annually on our covert regime change effort (slightly less well documented by the MSM in this country at least) should really be taken into consideration.

If we are going to address the root causes, we just can't ignore our officially stated regime change policy for Syria, nor the outside backing for it.

Of course, the aid and support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are now factors as well, but aren't in the "root causes" category.

A

Are you following things in California Re. Climate change ... the golden state is leading the way, for America and for the rest of us out in the world.

Thanks to Governors Brown and Schwarzengger and Davis ...

Syrian drought may have been contributing factors to the initial political unrest there but the actions of the Syrian government throughout the unrest and ensuing civil war have made this crisis what it is today.

Agreed. My point really was that Climate Change is going to be creating problem after problem -- resolving the political repercussions will require dealing with the underlying causes. Hard to say if the EU can meet the challenge -- would be encouraging if they can.

"Yeah, but those were the first 30+ numbers Trump has gotten -- and nobody else on the GOP side has even cracked 20 before very recently, I believe."

I don't disagree with the above, but the number of polls in the period between the debates is small and the total variance is likely high. Like I say, I'm a bit skeptical about whether Trump is merely doing well, or actually breaking out.

The Betfair Prediction Market has shown Trump trading flat for quite some time now. Even though the market is predicated on something many months out, their is money to be made on chumps who bet too high low on trump in the short term (the cash just exchanges hands after the nomination is actually decided. And yet, Trump remains flat, a bit below 15% implied probability.

Contrast that with Carson, who has steadily risen from an implied prob. near zero to something close to 7% or 8%. At this very moment he is spiking at 11%, but this looks to be rapidly collapsing bubble. Carson may be nibbling at Trump's lunch.

I posit everybody this. If somebody manages to make Trump look foolish for a few days, do his numbers stay high? I say they don't, because Trump can't tolerate looking like a chump and will sulk, and his followers won't tolerate him looking chump-ish either.

Interestingly, JEB! is still holding level at Befair, about 35%. Clinton, for all the E-mail discussion is still around 70%, having slowly but steadily declined from her high of 80%. Sanders saw most of his gains early after announcing, he's looks to be plateauing somewhere around 15%

Climate change is a very serious problem with serious national security implications and requires a very serious effort to mitigate it as the planet becomes increasingly less habitable.

However, I do not believe it should be the primary focus of what will be necessary to resolve the civil war in Syria. Climate change and the Syrian drought may have been contributing factors to the initial political unrest there but the actions of the Syrian government throughout the unrest and ensuing civil war have made this crisis what it is today.

With Trump and Carly?

No, there wasn't one with Trump.

But, I'll tell you what! It's not hard to imagine that you would do a better job than Fred Davis!

There's an even-longer (7+ min) "demon blimp" ad, too, from Carly's CA Senate campaign. I think both were cut down to air on tv. I know I saw both on TV at the time, and I can't imagine they were longer than 60 seconds, max.

-CW

That's very good. I could draw up a really good cartoon for that idea.

Thanks for the KY update. I thought Maine was the winner in the craziest gov around, but maybe KY will give them a run for the money.

altohone [2] -

"Paying attention to mind-numbing stuff so you don't have to since 2007!" That's our motto!

JFC [3] -

Anti-Trump ads are starting to deploy, from the big bucks side of the GOP. It'll be interesting to see if they have any effect at all, though.

JFC [4] -

See comment to comment [2]. I'll watch both debates live, so you don't have to! Heh.

Oh, program note: not sure whether I'll post a column before or after the debates this Wednesday... might do snap reactions, might wait until Thurs... no promises...

JFC [5] -

I heard about the Oreo boycott but never bothered to read why Trump won't eat them anymore. Really? They moved the plant to Mexico or something? That's his beef? I did hear a reporter tried to entice Trump to eat an Oreo during an interview... heh... this race is going to be one for the ages, that's for sure.

The Stig [9] -

Yeah, but those were the first 30+ numbers Trump has gotten -- and nobody else on the GOP side has even cracked 20 before very recently, I believe. That's an impressive amount of support, and I still don't see a ceiling in sight. I think more and more GOP voters are now seriously considering supporting Trump, and that the dismal performances by some of the other candidates might be driving this too.

JFC [10]-

"Release the demon sheep."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWlOxhSIKk

Heh.

TheStig -

Sorry about the website problems. I'll check the spam filter to see if anyone else is being caught...

-CW

No doubt about it, I'm having some troubling with getting things to submit without big lags, and with lots of double posts. So, if you could just dump 8 and 9 everybody will be less confused. Assuming this short messages posts properly. :-(

I'm a bit skeptical about that. Take a look at the linked RCP 2016 Republican Primary Poll Page. Ignore the chart below it, I'll get to that. For the moment, just focus on the six most recent polls, starting at just before the 1st debate and ending just before the 2nd. Trump's percentages, in order of appearance:

28,29,30,32,33,27 (avg. 29.8)

Over the first 5 polls he gains a total 5%, at rate of about 1% a week on average. Then, on the last sample he loses it all plus 1. In other words, net gain over the six periods, minus 1 percent. Strictly speaking, if you believe the individual tallies, Trump basically stalled in the six weeks after the debates.

But, each of these polls has a sampling error of roughly 3%, and each was conducted by a different polling outfit with a unique systematic bias which is probably highly speculative in this particular instance because bias is usually measured Rep vs Dem not Rep vs Rep.

Back to the RCP graph of the polling data. Trump's popularity line climbs seems to climb like a jet fighter over the six weeks between the two debates. Part of this is due to the fact that the Y axis is capped at 30%, which exaggerates slopes both up and down. Another factor is that RCP plots rolling averages,not individual poll results (RCP doesn't make the details public, for which they have been justly criticized). The advantage of this approach is that it smooths out random error and can reveal long term trends. The disadvantage is that it lags the onset of a trend, as well as the reversal of a trend. I'll be watching the tables over the next couple of weeks, not the rolling average.

One other thing....I've had a lot of trouble with inadvertent posts this week. It's as if my preview and submit buttons have merged. Here's hoping the problem goes away after my next system update from the the good people of MS. Or my reflexes return. Whichever.

"Release the hounds." - Montgomery Trump

I'm a bit skeptical about that. Take a look at the linked RCP 2016 Republican Primary Poll Page. Ignore the chart below it, I'll get to that. For the moment, just focus on the six most recent polls, starting at just before the 1st debate and ending just before the 2nd. Trump's percentages, in order of appearance:

28,29,30,32,33,27

I'm not convinced about either the 30% or the still climbing. From the linked RCP Republication 2016 page, the six polls taken from just before the first debate until just before the 2nd look like this, in order appearance, Trumps percentages are:

FWIW re: root causes, I read a thread yesterday at DailyKOS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/13/1420014/-The-refugee-crisis-is-a-portent) which discussed "a peer-reviewed scientific study explicitly linked the Syrian war to climate change."

There is evidence that the 2007?2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers.

Root causes may be far bigger than politics.

Re. our little discussion on the European refugee crisis.

I think the EU is not handling this well at all. Props to Germany, though, for really stepping up to the plate where all of its EU partners have not. Yes, Germany has now taken steps to restrain the influx of refugees but the rest of the EU nations need to take a few lessons from Germany's lead and from their own history.

What is the purpose of the EU if it cannot react collectively and effectively to this crisis? If the EU fails in dealing with this crisis, then we may witness the unraveling of this union. Which I think would be a very bad idea.

Of course, we need to look at the root cause of this increasing refugee crisis and begin to get serious about solving the political problems that have led to so many people fleeing for their very lives.

Syria would be a good place to start. And, the same kind of diplomatic effort that produced the Iran nuclear deal should be undertaken by the US and its partners and Iran to promote a political solution in Syria. This won't be an easy task but the outcome could very well be more than worth the effort.

"The GOP really wishes they had one of those other guys who destroyed each other and enabled the Bevin menace, but maybe he can ride the idiotic Trump wave to victory this fall. If a leader as stupid as McConnell says he's a con man, Bevin must be just like us."

Funny thing about Bevin. His main issue is ending Obamacare in Kentucky. He will do this primarily by turning Kentucky's state run exchange into a Federally run exchange and going back to Medicaid the way it was. This despite the fact that everyone in Kentucky, including state Republican officials, love their state exchange. It has lowered the uninsured in Kentucky from 20 percent to 9 percent, and is about the most successful and well run exchange in the nation. So much so that it is being held up as a model for other states. Oh, by the way, did I also happen to mention that everyone agrees that doing away with it now at this point, would actually cost Kentucky MORE money than simply continuing with it as is!

Just want to reiterate how effing great it is to have you following the clown car action... so I can do anything else.

I hope the fireworks materialize.

A