This year’s Intelligence Authorization bill contains language drafted by the CIA itself designed to make it a criminal act to reveal the name of undercover agents whether stationed overseas or at home, whether working or retired. The measure is designed – in the CIA’s own words – to prevent the kind of transparency that was provided by Wikileaks. It is a war on the free press! We have the details in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
On NBC News Saturday, I came across the following, revealing, headline:
The U.S. is eager to end its longest war. In interview, Taliban gives little sign it’s ready to change.
Aha! The US military is allegedly seeking an end to its Afghan war, but it’s being stopped in its tracks by stubbornly uncompromising Taliban forces. So, it’s not our fault, right? We’re trying to leave, but the Taliban won’t let us.
I’ve been writing against the Afghan war for a decade. It was always a lost war for the United States, and it always will be. But the US military doesn’t see it that way, as Andrew Bacevich explains in a recent article on America’s flailing and failing generals. These generals, Bacevich notes, have redefined the Afghan war as “successful to date.” How so? Because no major terrorist attack on America has come out of Afghanistan since 9/11/2001. As Bacevich rightly notes, such a criterion of “success” is both narrow and contrived.
So, according to Mark Milley, the most senior general in the US Army, soon to be head of the Joint Chiefs, America can count the Afghan war as “successful.” If so, why are we allegedly so eager to end it? Why not keep the “success” going forever?
The latest neocon scheme is to push US allies to send warships to join a US-led mission to keep the Strait of Hormuz “free and clear” for shipping. In reality it is a trigger for war. Thus far the US has no takers for this clear escalation. Will Bolton’s brigades begin peeling away EU hold-outs? The US is sending troops to Saudi Arabia and building up a massive airbase. Meanwhile, Iran claims to have broken up a CIA spy ring in country. War drums beating. Watch today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
Late in 2011 or early 2012, while on a late night road trip, I was seeking through radio stations and I happened across Mark Levin’s radio show. At the time, I would describe myself as a conservative, maybe even neo-conservative. The 2012 republican primary was just about to kick off, and on this particular night, just mere days before the Iowa caucuses, Mark Levin was lamenting the fact that Ron Paul’s polling numbers in Iowa had been somewhat favorable. Of course, the main reason behind Levin’s lamentations was in regards to Ron Paul’s foreign policy views.
The reason this night sticks out to me is because Levin went so far as to say he would entertain the idea of voting for the re-election of president Obama in a hypothetical Obama-Paul general election matchup, which, looking back, this hypothetical matchup is insane to even think about. So, the same guy in Obama, who Levin had spent the previous 3-4 years excoriating for almost every possible policy, and probably even non-policy related, item was now the better hypothetical option due solely to his furtherance of America’s military presence in the world, and specifically, in the Middle East.
The media is reporting today that the US will send 500 troops to Saudi Arabia to confront the Iran “threat” to the region. Just over a decade ago the US pulled its troops out of Saudi Arabia after acknowledging what Bin Laden had said about his motivation for the 9/11 attack: US troops on Saudi soil. Is it really a good idea to put troops back in? Watch today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
President Trump is sending a high-level delegation to meet with Russian counterparts in Geneva this week to pursue an arms control treaty that for the first time would cap the nuclear arsenals of not just the two largest powers, but China as well.
Mr. Trump broached the idea with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their meeting in Osaka, Japan, last month and has also signaled his ambition for such a three-way accord to President Xi Jinping of China, administration officials said on Monday. Russia has expressed interest; China has not [bold mine-DL].
China has no interest in being part of a trilateral arms control agreement. Their nuclear arsenal is much smaller, and they would have no reason to take part in negotiations that have traditionally been between the U.S. and Russia. China also sees the administration’s decision to quit the INF Treaty as an additional reason not to negotiate with the US:
Chinese officials have categorically rejected the idea regardless of how it is negotiated, citing, among other things, Mr. Trump’s decision to pull out of the I.N.F. treaty as evidence that the United States cannot be trusted.