Quarter of a million dead, dozens of radical terrorist networks created, thousands of Jihadists now roaming Europe, and the world brought closer to nuclear annihilation… heckuva job, Hilly.
Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN’s Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that “the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It’s the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza.” Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
The War is Peace candidate addresses AIPAC:
And Hillary’s previous hits:
This cable suggests that the US goal in December 2006 was to undermine the Syrian government by any available means, and that what mattered was whether US action would help destabilize the government, not what other impacts the action might have…In public, the US was opposed to ‘Islamist terrorists’ everywhere; but in private it saw the ‘potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists’ as an ‘opportunity’ that the US should take action to try to increase.
Every year, more than $1 billion is budgeted for “public diplomacy,” a circumlocutory term for outward-facing propaganda. Public diplomacy explicitly aims to influence journalists and civil society, so that they serve as conduits for State Department messaging.
And where is this empire?
Each working day, 71,000 people across 191 countries representing twenty-seven different US government agencies wake and make their way past flags, steel fences and armed guards into one of the 276 fortified buildings that comprise the 169 embassies and other missions of the US Department of State.
They are joined in their march by representatives and operatives from twenty-seven other US government departments and agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the various branches of the US military….
Wikileaks has released Sony emails, and there are many plump pickings. They discuss anti-Russian propaganda under the guise of countering propaganda. Typical.
This is interesting. They do call actors “meat puppets,” after all.
…We have already started to think through ways your superstars could potentially help amplify some of the great work US Embassy Paris is doing. We’d love to include Sony names in events here, either as guests or performers, and would love the opportunity to leverage their popularity to promote the President’s priorities and agenda overseas.
I’ve cc’d my Senior Advisor for Partnerships, Alan Fitts, on this email. You may actually know him – he worked for the First Lady for the first term of the Administration, and then was most recently the White House Liaison to the State Department. He is going to be leading a lot of the efforts here to bridge private companies with Embassy and Administration programs. I am hoping you may be able to speak with him or connect him with the right folks from your team. I’d love to kick off an active dialogue with Sony, and together find creative ways to do good work (and have some fun along the way).
Empire is so fun.
Newsweek finally cares about Assange?
“The question then arises as to what kinds of information will produce behavior which is just and disincentivize behavior which is unjust.”