Clinton Gang Push for War with Iran 84

So what are the Clinton gang doing while Trump introduces anti-Muslim immigration discrimination? Oh, they are pushing for war with Iran, which might give pause to some who think the world would have been less awful had Hillary won.

Here is the front page of the resolution introduced into the House of Representatives by Democrat Alcee L Hastings, an extremely close ally of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who had to resign in disgrace as chair of the Democratic National Committee after WikiLeaks published emails establishing her corrupt endeavours to fix the primary elections for Hillary against Bernie Sanders.

The Resolution reads “To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

There is in fact no evidence that Iran is continuing a covert programme to produce nuclear weapons. British, French and Russian intelligence all assess that Iran is sticking to its agreements and – here is a key point – so do the CIA. But when did politicians ever let facts stand in their way?

Trump’s mad visa ban, which excludes Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States which are the main financiers, armers, ideologues and exporters of Salafist terrorism, turns out to be imposed on the countries which were on Obama’s watchlist. As the Hastings resolution shows, the anti-Iranian and pro-Saudi madness is bipartisan. To include Iran but exclude Saudi Arabia is further evidence of the twisting of US foreign policy to serve the interests of Saudi Arabia and its ally Israel. This infographic has been compiled based on research by the Cato Institute. I would add the caveat that it refers to terrorist attacks inside America.

The full piece it is derived from is well worth reading. I am not in general a fan of the Cato Institute, but they deserve commendation for consistency in their anti-authoritarian line.

These are dangerous times. And with the Democrats vying for “dumb patriot” support and seeking to outflank Trump to the right by roaring him on to a military attack on Iran, and seeking to push through legislation to promote that, there appear few influential voices of reason in the USA at present.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

84 thoughts on “Clinton Gang Push for War with Iran

  • giyane

    If you can’t buy jihadis with Green Cards or EU visas, maybe you can buy them with threats to Iran.
    The problem is not the stupidity of the Americans, it’s the stupidity of Political Muslims desperately wanting to be duped. Hillary Clinton told Pakistan she would establish legal protection for Shi’a clergy if she came to power.
    No problem, we’ll do whatever she wants!

  • fred

    Things have moved on since George Bush labelled Iran part of the Axis of Evil, a lot of work has gone into brokering a deal not just with Iran but with other countries. A deal was made which I think benefits all, Iran curtailed their nuclear activities and America lifted sanctions, the path was laid for Iran to become a member of the international community.

    But the deal didn’t just have to be sold to Iran, it had to be sold to Israel and now it has to be sold to the President of the United States to prevent the good work that was done being undone.

  • John Goss

    Having speed-read the CATO report by Alex Nowrasteh I realise I canot discuss the graphic based on it, which itself relies on contestable data, without having yet another comment removed by your mods. So no comment.

  • Sharp Ears

    What became of Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner who were part of Shillary’s team/gang?

    • Anon1

      It is not a “Muslim ban”. It is a ban on passport holders from specific failed states deemed to be a threat to the US. Iran shouldn’t be on the list, though, I would agree.

      • Republicofscotland

        Failed states, that’s rich, Libya and Syria and Iraq, are in a terrible state, not because they’ve failed but because we in the West, bombed their infrastructure back to the stone age, whilst letting loose savage proxy armies to murders their citizens.

        Allunder the guise of promoting democracy, and we call Islam evil and belligerent.

        • nevermind

          not to forget the 155 billion of Libyan monies that have been disappeared as of magic, money that could have helped to stabilise and restructure the economy and services.
          Failed states is a euphemism for not getting your way as you demanded hence you’ll declare that they need serious help with ‘humanitarian bombing’ to make the state ‘safe’ again.

      • Habbabkuk

        The Trump ban appears to be very similar to the ban by a number of Arab and Muslim states on the entry of Israeli passport holders (and even, come to think about it, on non-Israeli passport holders whose passports sport an Israeli entry stamp).

        With the difference, of course, that the Trump ban is announced as temporary whereas the other ban to which I refer has been state policy for decades.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Habbabkuk January 30, 2017 at 16:30
          But unlike Trump’s discrimination, the Arab states have good cause – ever pondered that?
          And no, you won’t catch me out into an immoderate reply to whatever you come up with – I wasn’t born yesterday.

    • craig Post author

      I watched the amazing documentary “Weiner” recently, and perhaps contrary to the expectations of the documentary makers ended up rather liking the man, despite his faults.

      • Anon1

        Yes I saw that too. It was an intriguing documentary. What a weird couple, though. I’m not sure I could like the man after it was revealed he had been sexting underage girls throughout the duration of the filming. It seems like he genuinely can’t help himself.

        • craig Post author

          Anon1 the film didn’t refer to any underage girls, and the one it featured was definitely not underage. She was, however, appalling.

          The underage thing is of course different if true, and not forgivable. I am not sure if we know it is true yet.

          • Anon1

            EXCLUSIVE: Anthony Weiner carried on a months-long online sexual relationship with a troubled 15-year-old girl telling her she made him ‘hard,’ asking her to dress up in ‘school-girl’ outfits and pressing her to engage in ‘rape fantasies’

            Daily Mail

            It was mentioned at the end of the program but I don’t remember whether it was known at the time that she was underage.

  • lysias

    Alcee Hastings is one of the most prominent and corrupt members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The Web site has been properly scathing about this collection of charlatans.

  • Aurora

    “…pushing for war with Iran, which might give pause to some who think the world would have been less awful had Hillary won”

    It’s getting feeble already. Huge doses of whataboutery concerning what a Clinton administration might or might not have done, and a blank refusal to condemn Trump and his mob for inciting global-level racism and discrimination as anything more than ‘mad’ or ‘crazy.’ You need to return to the factual world.

    • Node

      Huge doses of whataboutery concerning what a Clinton administration might or might not have done, and a blank refusal to condemn Trump …

      I suspect Craig’s point was less partisan. Had Clinton won, Craig might equally have referred to Trump’s promises to Israel’s right-wingers and said : “…pushing for war with Iran, which might give pause to some who think the world would have been less awful had Trump won”

    • bevin

      You seem to be totally reconciled to the main political point of this post, namely that the Democratic Party leadership seems committed to its ludicrous position that Trump is a crypto-Soviet KGB agent. The Democrats can prevent Trump from carrying out any of the policies which they pretend to dislike, but to do so they will have to work as an Opposition in the Senate. They could have held up the Cabinet nominations more or less indefinitely, but they are choosing not to do so.
      The fact is that, thanks to the Clintons the Democratic Party is incapable of working as an opposition, it is what Cobbett called a ‘shoyhoy’ whose sole purpose is to occupy the space a real opposition needs.
      In fact the main focus of the Democratic leadership’s energies is to defend neo-con warmongering- see Iran above- and keep the angry left at bay.
      For someone who claims to have been a Sanders supporter you seem to be exhibiting all the symptoms of, galloping, Stockholm Syndrome.

      • Aurora

        I don’t have a direct vested interest in any US politician, since I don’t live there. Yes I supported Sanders and would continue to support him from afar. I understand the argument for ‘not supporting Clinton’ made by some of the left – though also noting that many far more to the left recommended voting for her rather than Trump or not voting. What I’m pointing out and objecting to is the attempt to justify, gloss over or distract focus from the actual Trump administration with a constant stream of maybe plausible to fairly implausible counterfactuals, combined with a tendency – which Craig Murray has already admitted – to have underestimated quite what Trump would put into action from his campaign rhetoric. Already entirely disproved.

      • Aurora

        As for: “You seem to be totally reconciled to the main political point of this post, namely that the Democratic Party leadership seems committed to its ludicrous position that Trump is a crypto-Soviet KGB agent.”

        Hand puppet will do.

      • Aurora

        And just to set out the options we were dealing with. Discounting actual Trump supporters who actually like what he proposed and is now putting into practice, there were 4 position:
        1. Vote Clinton as least worse option.
        2. Don’t vote as least worse option.
        3. Vote Trump (or non-Clinton) as least worse option.
        4. Vote Trump as worst option, let the whole thing blaze and see what happens.
        1 is fairly unambiguous but allows anyone who advocated the option to be labelled a Clinton supporter/apologist. Including the likes of Chomsky and Sanders. But 2-4 are ambiguous (and even include the possibility of ‘0’, actually wanting to see Trump’s policies introduced as a secret supporter of his white supremacist plutocratic program). If you’re going to label everyone who suggested option 1 a Clintonite, be prepared to have your own position questioned, including the last possibility. Absurd?

      • Habbabkuk


        “.. its ludicrous position that Trump is a crypto-Soviet KGB agent.”

        I agree that it is ludicrous – in fact, as ludicrous as the recent claims by a contributor on here (apparently Washington-based) that President Barack Obama was the CIA’s “Manchurian candidate”.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Aurora January 30, 2017 at 12:31
      If you want facts in a factual world, vis-a-vis the Hildabeast, read Cathy O’Brien’s book ‘Access Denied – For Reasons of National Security’. This video will give you a pretty good idea, but you really need to read one of her books (the other is ‘TranceFormation of America’ to appreciate appreciate what Clinton is, and that’s before Haiti and Pizzagate.
      Oddly enough, Cathy is still alive, and never been sued. Strange, wot?
      Nothing the slightest bit ‘feeble’ about her books – on the contrary, you’ll need a strong stomach to handle them – very strong indeed.

  • el sid

    Where’s that island Richard Branson lives on.

    We could bomb that, then everyone would get that angst off their chests.

    For extra points, I believe, Mr Cameron’s staying there these days.

    (I hate to be tedious but these desktop bombardiers should get over it. Take up a different hobby!)

  • dunwich

    Not sure what Cato are counting, but to say there have been no Americans killed by Iraqis since 1975 is surely wrong. Neither Gulf War 1, nor Gulf War 2 were casualty free and we can’t really suppose they we are the result of actions by non-Iraqis.

  • Rhisiart Gwilym

    The Cato Institute appears to lay responsibility for the victims of the 11/9/01 atrocities in the US at the door of Saudi Arabia; whereas any – genuinely open-minded – person with any savvy at all knows perfectly well that the false-flag/inside-job hypothesis is at least worthy of serious consideration. And an increasing percentage of the world’s people are persuaded that that is indeed the right story. Repeated polls make that quite clear. You only have to cruise through the mountain of hard evidence that’s been accrued by the volunteer truth-seeking community to see that the inside-job hypothesis is conclusively persuasive. The tipping point is coming on steadily. Do you really want to be amongst the flat-earthers who still cling to the official cospithirry, when the truth finally breaks into worldwide mainstream discourse…?

    • Bayard

      AFAICS, all the Cato Institute is saying is that the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, not that Saudi Arabia was responsible. They could have been Saudi citizens recruited to carry out an inside job.

    • Ronnie Young

      Unfortunately there are, and probably always will be, too many simply unable to look past their belief systems (“they would never attack their own/ get away with it/ etc”) to actually look at the mountain of evidence and indeed the proof of freefall. I would love to believe there’s a tipping point but from my own experience of talking to so many who should know better makes me more than skeptical.

  • Republicofscotland

    “they are pushing for war with Iran, which might give pause to some who think the world would have been less awful had Hillary won.”


    As far as I can gather from reports, Trump strongly advocated (during his candidacy for POTUS) to either, walk away from the Iranian deal or renegotiate it.

    Netanyahu vehemently opposes any deal with Iran and America, not forgetting that Netanyahu was the first leader Trump called after his victory.

    I can forsee in the not so distant future, Clinton backing Trump on a war with Iran, accelerated by a attack of some kind that will be wrongly traced back to Iran. Or false information (akin to Iraq) that Iran is close to producing nukes and ergo must be stopped at all costs.

    Israel will not want Iran to prosper from trade deals, with America, and other nations now sanctions have been removed. A prosperous Iran, would in the eyes of Netanyahu threaten the region, war seems inevitable.

    • bevin

      Let us be quite clear on this: any war on Iran would be likely to trigger a full scale nuclear war involving Russia and China.
      It used to be well understood in the old CND days that one of the reasons why US policy was so insanely dangerous was the knowledge that the major brunt of a Russian nuclear strike would be borne by the people of Europe. It remains the case that Europe will have to be demolished in order for Russia to deal with the United States, and that every US or NATO base is a primary target for a counter attack in the event of US aggression.
      Or, in other words, the US is not protecting Europe it is using it as a live hostage.
      Nor can it be stated too often that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons programme during the past two decades. It has been quite clear on this and there has never been any evidence that it is being deceitful. There are nuclear weapons in the region: Israel has plenty of them and it is quite likely that Saudi Arabia, thanks to the Sharifs in Pakistan, is also provided with the means of starting the last war on this planet.

      • Republicofscotland

        “Nor can it be stated too often that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons programme during the past two decades. ”


        Well Bevin, according to this report Iran only began dismantling its centrifuges in 2015, of course the Stuxnet virus, took out many more centrifuges.

        As for creating nukes, it would be far easier for Iran to buy them from Russia or China, they could have been smuggled through Pakistan.

        Afterall I’m pretty sure Israel first acquired nukes, in that particular fashion.


        “Let us be quite clear on this: any war on Iran would be likely to trigger a full scale nuclear war involving Russia and China.”


        I doubt that very much, I’d be more inclined to say that proxy fighters, like the ones in Syria or Yemen, would be deployed to combat US forces.

        Open conflict would be far to risky for China or Russia.

        • Clark

          “Iran only began dismantling its centrifuges in 2015”

          As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 20% as nuclear fuel for power, research and isotope production. IAEA inspections (stricter than the usual international standard) consistently showed that no fissile material had been diverted from civilian purposes.

          • Republicofscotland

            Yes Clark, Iran should be allowed to use nuclear fuel, infact Russia was reportedly building two nuclear power stations in Iran (Bushehr) starting on September last year.

            I’d imagine the unofficial input of Israel in my opinion, has led to tighter restrictions than usual.

            I do not agree with those who say Iran should have nukes, it would only raises tensions in the region in my opinion. However I do understand why Iran wants nukes.

            The IAEA, would be better putting all of its energy and clout into trying to thwart North Korea’s attempts to build long range nukes. NK wants to be able to threaten the West coast of America, but as yet it has been unable to fufil that empty threat.

            China appears to a major obstacle in the quelling of NK’s nukes programme (Israel is strangely silent on NK nukes, as if we didn’t know why). The problem is China sees NK as a Chinese buffer zone.

          • Habbabkuk


            “I do not agree with those who say Iran should have nukes, it would only raises tensions in the region in my opinion. However I do understand why Iran wants nukes.”

            Does your understanding stretch to the Israeli case for wanting nukes?

          • Republicofscotland

            “Does your understanding stretch to the Israeli case for wanting nukes?”



            One could say that by acquiring nukes Israel has escalated the arms race in the region. Bringing upon themselves a flurry of activity of nations in the region, to seek nukes to use as bargaining chips, in the event of hostilities increasing.

            Israel aside, other nations in the region, (and I could say nations outwith the region) try and create or obtain nukes, to thwart the almost guaranteed invasion from the Great Satan and its minions.

            I don’t recall the US invading any nuclear nation?

            One also has to ask, would the US have invaded the likes of Libya or Syria if those countries possessed functional nuclear weapons?

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Republicofscotland January 30, 2017 at 15:02
            If Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria had had nuclear weapons, they would not be in the state they are in now.
            Nukes are a deterrent, against unwarranted, illegal wars of aggression which are allowed by the ‘UN’ if perpetrated by ‘strong’ powers against far weaker ones.
            Before you criticise North Korea, you should do a bit of research about the Korean War (and not on Wikipedia).
            I am not in any way an apologist for their brutal regime, but it should be seen in context.

        • Kempe

          ” As for creating nukes, it would be far easier for Iran to buy them from Russia or China ”

          It would put either country in breach of the NPT, something which they might not want to risk, even covertly.

          How do people feel about CND’s support for Iran’s right to have a peaceful nuclear programme but their implacable opposition to the UK having one?

        • Habbabkuk

          I agree with RoS’s last point. To believe that a war on Iran would lead to a nuclear war with Russia and China would appear – at best – to be wishful thinking.

          • Republicofscotland


            Indeed I’m reminded of Angola, where the US and Russia played out their wars games using proxy armies of indigenous peoples, as usual it all ended very badly for the Angolans.

            The upside, if there was one, no nukes were fired.

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Republicofscotland January 30, 2017 at 19:21
            But who were the aggressors? Angola was threatening no one. Russia ‘responded’ to the attacks by Western-backed Apartheid South Africa, via it’s client Cuba, who owed them.
            And Cuba only became indebted to Russia because America refused Castro’s friendship approach, and undertook a merciless trade and covert war against him and his people.

  • Republicofscotland


    But a look at the mountain Britain needs to climb after Brexit, outside the EU.

    “The UK has long depended on heavy flows of investment from abroad to make up for the weaknesses in its own corporate and financial institutions.”

    “In 2015 the UK ran a deficit in its external trade in goods and services of 96 billion pounds ($146 billion in 2015), or 5.2 percent of GDP, the largest percentage deficit in postwar British history and by far the largest of any of the G-7 group of industrialized economies.”

    “By comparison, the US ran a deficit of 2.6 percent of GDP, while Germany earned a surplus of 8.3 percent, Japan a surplus of 3.6 percent, and France broke even. In the memorable words of Mark Carney, the Canadian-born Governor of the Bank of England, the UK must depend on “the kindness of strangers” to remedy its trade gap.”

    As I’ve said before, Brexit will be a unmitigated disaster for the citizens of the UK.

    • Roderick Russell

      Re RepublicOfScotlands comment on: the article who’s URL you refer to, above – “The Death of British Business”. It outlines the magnitude of the decline of British business since ww2 and points out that even other countries that have done badly themselves, have nevertheless out-performed the UK.

      Personally, I had hoped that “remain” would win the referendum. But the victory of Brexit is not surprising. Many people are fed up with the ongoing decline of British industry, so aptly described in the article, and its effect on their jobs and living standards. They want change.

      My own view is that it is the establishment itself has been the main contributant to British decline, through its often incompetent control of so many of our institutions, and by selfishly keeping real power and decision making in a self-serving oligarchy. Clearly the Westminster system of government, designed in the days when government was much smaller and decentralised, is not working well. I think Britain will only move forward when there has been significant constitutional change both to decentralize and to democratize the way the country is governed.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Republicofscotland January 30, 2017 at 15:23
      The UK is reliant on outside investment? So why on earth should not the vastly wealthy City of London provide the investment?
      The sooner we’re out, the better. One World Gulag (of which the EU is a major part of the jigsaw) does not appeal to me, or many others, at all.

  • Republicofscotland

    Anon1, has been strangely quiet over the six Muslims gunned down in a mosque in Quebec Canada.

    The press are reporting it as a terrorist act, I wonder if the perpetrators are Christian terrorists? I doubt that description, will rest easy with Anon1.

    As the media often reports, that terrorists are Muslim, so why not say Christian terrorists as well. Of course that wouldn’t sit easy with the official narrative.

    Still Anon1 has penchant for only reporting Muslim crimes, or quoting from the ROP. Maybe that’s why he’s remained tacit on this occasion.

    • Sharp Ears

      It was another one of these weird ‘loners’ who acted alone apparently.

      Quebec mosque attack: Student Alexandre Bissonnette charged

      No doubt stirred into action by the muck coming out from the ‘White ‘ House.

      ‘According to local media, Mr Bissonnette studied political science and anthropology at Laval University, whose campus is about 3km (two miles) away from the mosque.

      The Montreal Gazette reports that the suspect dressed up as the Grim Reaper for Halloween, according to his Facebook page, which has now been taken offline.
      On the social network, he also reportedly “liked” US President Donald Trump and French National Front leader Marine Le Pen.

      Francois Deschamps, an official with an advocacy group, Welcome to Refugees, said the suspect was known for his far-right views.’

  • Aurora

    Right, only it seems that its standard practice here that any questioning of Trump automatically reveals a pro-Clinton motivation. Haven’t once seen that imputation removed.

    • giyane

      Not pro-Clinton, pro neo-con, whose wide arse of status quo power has encompassed Left and right, East and west, Male and female, Christian and Muslim. The newly encarcerated neo-cons are rattling their cages that Trump is breaking US law by his executive orders. As if arming proxy state terrorists to enslave Muslims citizens of sovereign nations, and creating these terrorists with psychotic drugs and torture in US proxy jails, or purchasing the spoils of proxy, terrorist, illegal land grabs – were all legal.

      The neo-cons and their possies of criminals are getting rounded up and brought before the law. Sure , that’s illegal to round up criminals. In Obamaland.

      • giyane

        Today has been an eye-opener. Clinton famously said that if Trump got in he would hang the neo-cons. The guilty-up-to-their-eyeballs neo-cons know that their best policy is to keep mum and not draw attention to themselves, but all those who are merely guilty by association, such as Ed Miliband through arch-demon-neo-con brother David, dripping with Iraqi blood.

        Where has Ed been the last 7 years? Today he was rattling the cage against the Trump phenomenon on the Today programme.

    • mauisurfer

      so now it was Craig Murray that did it!
      and i thought it was Putin
      that’s what Hillary said, that’s what nyt said.
      would they ever lie?

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Bob Apposite January 30, 2017 at 19:03
      Sure, they may be out of power, but their puppetmasters are still as powerful in the ‘Shadow Government’, and they can push for things, and very powerfully.

  • Sharp Ears

    Said to be the reason for exclusion of Saudi Arabia in the ‘banned countries’ list. Alwaleed had these over Trump.

    Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Warns Donald of Debt: “Donald Trump better realize who I am, I financially rescued him twice”,-i-financially-rescued-him-twice

    The ‘rescues’ involved a yacht on which the TRUMPeter had accrued debts of $900m and also the Trump Plaza hotel in NY.

    Alwaleed and Trump have apparently kissed and made up since.

  • lysias

    Actually, Trump’s executive order doesn’t even name the seven countries. The critical language is in section 3(c) of the executive order:

    “To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

    So the seven countries are those singled out for special treatment by section 217(a)(12) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, as amended in 2009 by the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-145, which, as it happens, was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama.

  • Mata Bakhtiar

    After hundreds of billions of dollars down in the pocket because of useless wars, and giving the impression of being the biggest hypocrites, uncompassionate and untrustworthy people; anywhere on this planet. The question is, will the Americans ever learn from the past mistakes. We know who the Iranians are!

  • Aurora

    Another one for the Trumpapologists to skip around.
    Fresh from the Führerhauptquartiere:
    “The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.”
    So the Attorney General upholding the constitution and the law is an act of ‘betrayal’ when she contradicts the president’s wishes. They were clearly itching to get that word betrayal out there. Just measure that for a second. Essentially Trump is declaring he is the state. L’État, c’est moi. And they’re only getting started.

  • Sharp Ears

    Reference the State Visit of the Ceausescus in 1978..

    Nicholas Bethell investigates the unprecedented royal attack on Ceausescu
    5 May 1989

    IT WAS only through an elaborate series of coincidences that Prince Charles felt able to make his speech last Thursday attacking President Ceausescu for ‘the wholesale destruction of his country’s cultural and human heritage’. Constitutionalists cannot recall the last occasion when a senior member of the royal family spoke up so clearly against the policies of a foreign government in peacetime, or against a foreign head of state personally. Today’s world, it has been pointed out, contains many tyrannies and it is not easy to explain why he should have chosen faraway Rumania, about which the British have traditionally known little and cared less, for his first foray into foreign policy.


    Different days in another time.

  • Sharp Ears

    Netanyahu: Iran missile test must not go unanswered

    Israeli anger over Iranian missile test
    Israel’s PM urges renewing sanctions against Iran after its latest ballistic missile test.
    4 hours ago

    Netanyahu goes to Washington in February.

    Seven ways the world could change

    CIA head warns Trump over Iran deal

    • Itsy

      From your BBC link:

      “It is not yet clear what type of missile was launched, or if it explicitly violated the UN resolution.”

      Isn’t that sort of relevant?

  • Kerch'ee Kerch'ee Coup

    Rather troubling that since the beginning of this year, the wording relating to the punishment of persons involved in the preparation of an aggressive attack war has been deleted from the German legal code. Makes things easier for Nato or an EU army to move ‘preemtively’ against Russia or Iran.

  • Pat Britten

    The treaty expires in 10 years, I think that this legislation is intended to free the US military to destroy Iran’s future hostile nuclear intent potential, in the same sense that Israel probably killed Bull, studnet, and strategic destruction of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorist states, or dissuade them from pursuing that route. I don’t think the average Iranian, wants the reign of terror, holier than though street punks prevailing over them, and neither does the rest of the world, nor does the average American. Nobody wants war, just the pretence where the fleecing can take place, until governments commit between them to peace, and pursue peaceful pursuits together, the status quo will prevail. The left morals are slowly being adopted world wide, the left politics have been co-opted by religious fundamentalism, the drug trade, and assorted other dead ends and odd flip flops through recent history. I don’t believe in reacting to ignorance, so much as hammering on personal freedom, and appropriate technology in response to the real Trans anthropomorphic era and all the desireability, accountability, and responsibility it demands. The world is as we have made it!, no more nor less, not as I desire it.

  • Paul Barbara

    @ Craig
    ‘So what are the Clinton gang doing while Trump introduces anti-Muslim immigration discrimination? Oh, they are pushing for war with Iran, which might give pause to some who think the world would have been less awful had Hillary won.

    Here is the front page of the resolution introduced into the House of Representatives by Democrat Alcee L Hastings, an extremely close ally of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who had to resign in disgrace as chair of the Democratic National Committee after WikiLeaks published emails establishing her corrupt endeavours to fix the primary elections for Hillary against Bernie Sanders….’

    But how much worse would it have been to have the ‘President’ also pushing the same theme?
    I’m pleased Trump beat her, but I detest Trump as well – just not as much as I detest Clinton (who has a ‘record’ you would find hard to believe).

  • Sharp Ears

    From the blog of the excellent John Hilley.

    Thursday, 2 February 2017

    ‘Trump protests must see and oppose US crimes in their totality

    As global protests continue against Donald Trump, what could be the nucleus of a promising new progressive movement, akin to Occupy, is being compromised by a faux liberal ‘resistance’.

    It’s been encouraging to see people act in a spirit of intuitive solidarity with Muslims in rejection of Trump’s discriminatory edicts. But, thanks to the liberal media’s veneration of Obama and Hillary, and dismal silence on that administration’s own authoritarian policy crimes, the real issue of ongoing US power, and Trump as its latest manifestation, is being neutered. And the convenient effect of this is to paint Obama and previous presidents as, somehow, rational and benign.

    How many of those worthy protesters are likely to know that Trump’s executive order banning Muslims is actually the continuation of a policy initiated by Obama? How many realise that the seven Muslim countries ‘picked out’ by Trump are the same seven countries targeted by his predecessor? ‘


    • Paul Barbara

      A point I have put at recent London Demos with my megaphone (before it got stolen after the Women’s March!), largely to be met with deaf ears or even hostility. Follow the leader, follow the ‘Party Plan’.
      Anything else and you’re an ‘outsider’, a ‘conspiracy theorist’. The ability to question what they are told by StW or whichever ‘Left Party’ line they follow seems largely to have been lost.

    • Jo

      Twas always thus, SE.

      The media chooses to focus on one story while everything else flows under the radar.

      Not a healthy situation for any of us.

Comments are closed.