Rush Just Exposed The Reason Obama Says ‘ISIL’ Instead Of ‘ISIS’

There is a reason why President Barack Obama uses the term ISIL rather than ISIS, and talk show host Rush Limbaugh says the American people won’t like the reason.

Limbaugh said the reason isn’t related to blaming George W. Bush for terrorism, but rather to diminish Israel.

“I think there’s a totally different reason for this,” Limbaugh said on his show, referring to views of different pundits about the sudden switch in terms.

ISIS is an acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, whereas ISIL stands for the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. The Levant includes the entire region, Limbaugh pointed out.

“It would include Israel, which, to these people, Israel is a fraud. Israel doesn’t deserve to be there. That’s all Palestine and that’s what I think is behind the pronunciation, this insistence that it be called ISIL,” the national talk show host said.

Limbaugh noted that the only ones who use the term ISIL include Obama and members of his administration. The media, and everyone else, continues to call the terrorism organization ISIS.

“I think he’s got a different audience for the term. I don’t think he’s talking to the American people. I think he’s talking to Iran,” he said.

The talk show host said Obama uses the term as a way to support Iran, which benefits from sectarian violence between the Sunnies and the Shi’ites. Continued division among its neighbors gives Iran more control over the region, according to Limbaugh.

Limbaugh also said that it is clear that increased terrorism and decreased security of the United States fall at Obama’s feet.

“Bush is eight years ago now, seven years. They know Bush had nothing to do with San Bernardino. He had nothing to do with Fort Hood,” Limbaugh said.

He continued in comparing the two presidents and even suggested that the U.S. president has loyalties elsewhere.

“People know what when Bush was president, this stuff didn’t happen. People know that when Bush was president, there wasn’t an ISIS and all this happens to coincide with the election of Barack Hussein O. But the use of the word ‘Levant’ has an audience in the Middle East. He’s not talking to us,” Limbaugh said.

Giuliani Just Revealed EXACTLY What ISIS Is In 5 Words Obama Won’t Want You To Hear

The foreign policy ineptitude demonstrated by President Obama created the conditions where ISIS could grow, thrive, and now slaughter victims in Europe former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said this week.

“ISIS is filling a vacuum created by a vacuous foreign policy,” Giuliani said Monday on Fax News. “ISIS is an Obama creation.”

“This did not have to happen if our policies were different,” Giuliani said. “If President Obama had listened to Senator McCain and Senator Graham and a whole group of other people, and had set up a no-fly zone in Syria five years ago — if we had gone in and worked with the Syrian legitimate rebels…If we had not taken our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS never would have emerged.”

If we had 50 or 60,000 troops in Iraq, we would have been getting the intelligence that would have told us about the development of ISIS. And that would have been given to the CIA,” Giuliani said.

“Once you take your troops out, we have no resources, we have no real access,” Giuliani declared. “Here’s the simple fact, and this goes back to President Bush, some American president has to hold a speech at night and say to the American people, ‘We have to be in the Middle East until the threat against us is over.’ Just the way we were in Germany. Just the way we were in Italy. Just the way we are now in South Korea.”

Giuliani said Monday that the aftermath of the Paris attacks took him back to the events of September 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked New York City.

“This has been a very difficult weekend for me because it brings back September 11 and all the terrible memories I have of it,” he said. “And the thought then, when President Bush, you know, acted so decisively and so quickly, that maybe something like this wouldn’t happen again.”

h/t: Media Research Center

Hispanic Repubs Just Issued This MAJOR Warning To GOP Candidates Right Before Debate

The night before the GOP presidential candidates meet in Boulder, Colo. for their third debate, a group of conservative Hispanic groups gathered and issued a warning.

The Tuesday night meeting was “held less than a mile from the site of the debate at the University of Colorado’s Boulder campus, was organized by the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership. It was also attended by leaders from other grassroots groups, including the Latino Coalition, Hispanic Leadership Fund and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference — all key groups engaged in building support for Republicans among the Latino community,” the Huffington Post reports

The one thing all the leaders of the groups could agree on is that Donald Trump is not their candidate.

The partnership’s president Alfonso Aguilar, who served in the administration of George W. Bush, said, “We are not going to shy away from the fact that if Mr. Trump is the nominee, we will encourage Latinos to write their own candidate in.”

“We still have hope that we can help elect a Republican candidate, but we are 100 percent united behind the fact that Mr. Trump is not our guy,” Massey Villarreal, former head of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said before the meeting according to the Washington Times

Rosario Marin, former treasurer of the United States under President George W. Bush, stated plainly, “Heed our warning. Don’t expect us to come to your side during the general election. You are not with us now, we will not be with you then. You don’t need our vote now, you won’t have it then. You insult us now, we will be deaf to you then. You take us for granted now, we will not recognize you then.” Marin indicated that she is supporting her former boss’ brother Jeb Bush in the 2016 race.

The American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership felt it was appropriate to gather and issue their warning in the swing state of Colorado, given the key Hispanic demographic in the electorate. The Rocky Mountain state went for Barack Obama in 2012, with the president carrying 75 percent of the Latino vote. He took 71 percent nationally.

The Republican candidate who did the best among Latinos in recent elections was George W. Bush, who garnered 44 percent nationwide in his narrow 2004 victory.

“We have not worked on behalf of this party for decades only to see our community work undone by the divisiveness of some candidates,” Marin stated. “I will not name names, but one in particular has earned my absolute disgust and contempt. I will not dirty my mouth by pronouncing his name.”

Aguilar did not shy away from naming names. “At this point, I think we’ve been very clear that we are not going to endorse or attack any candidate besides Trump,” he said. “If we don’t see a course correction, then I think we may start naming other names.”

Bush Kept Us Safe*

Try to contain your excitement, America! The younger brother of President George W. Bush wants to be president, too. Well, he tells us he wants to be president. Jeb’s running as a legacy admission while saying he’s his own man. It’s like a 30-year-old living “alone” in his parents’ basement.

The people advising and donating to Jeb all come from the Bush-o-sphere created by his father and brother. How does one get to say he’s his own man while an unprecedented two former presidents campaign and fundraise for him? Easy: Lie. Just make it up.

And it’s a peculiar lie, too. The kind of lie that makes you uncomfortable because it’s so clearly untrue. Jeb’s “I’m my own man” is the comb-over of lies: Sure it might make you feel better to slick those greasy long strands over your chrome dome, but you’re not fooling anyone!

But Jeb’s autonomy (that his Big Brother and his mommy and daddy will totally vouch for) isn’t even the saddest and creepiest lie he’s looping. The most cringe-worthy, face-palming, #headdesk, squirm-inducing baloney Jeb repeats is, “My brother kept us safe.”

Uh…from what exactly? An unparalleled terrorist attack? Nope. That was on September 11, 2001; and thanks to a Supreme Court decision, Dubya was president on that day.

No, his little brother claims, he kept us safe after we lost 3,000 Americans to a planned act of mass murder.

OK. We were safe after September 11th?

From what exactly? Nation building? Losing 4,491 American soldiers, over a 100,000 Iraqi civilians, 136 journalists, 51 media support workers and trillions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the region for the next couple of generations?

He did not keep us safe from that. We’re still not safe from that.

So I ask again, what did Bush keep us safe from?

Katrina? More Americans died (1,833) in Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath than in any other natural disaster since the advent of the helicopter. It wasn’t just a failure of engineering, it was the caving of an indifferent government headed by a man most noted for his month-long vacations. Bush was celebrating John McCain’s birthday while thousands of families were stranded without proper food, water or waste disposal. We all watched scenes from a Third-World banana republic play out on TV in our country – bodies bloated and rotting in the sun, looting and hordes of hungry and bewildered refugees.

Bush did not keep us safe from that. We nearly lost an American city on his watch.

So, safe? From?

From the economy buckling and millions of Americans losing their savings, pensions and retirements? Ten million Americans lost their homes. Entire communities were obliterated. Millions of Americans lost their jobs. There’s now a giant swath of Baby Boomers who will never be able to retire because their investments disappeared on Bush’s watch. The Wall Street Journal dubbed Dubya the worst on jobs since we started keeping track of them.

How about our morality? We tortured prisoners. No way to skirt around it. Calling it “enhanced interrogation” doesn’t make it not torture in the eyes of the international community or any other thinking person. Bush didn’t keep us safe from that either.

So Bush didn’t keep us safe from a terrorist attack, an overseas quagmire, a botched response to a natural disaster, an economic collapse or moral decay.

What Jeb seems to be claiming is that his Big Brother saw to it that TSA agents patted down your elderly granny and confiscated all of our bottled water at the airport. That he created more government agencies that sounded like they were doing something important, like Homeland Security. There was more security—more scrutiny after thousands lost their lives in Lower Manhattan.

People who say “Bush kept us safe” are really celebrating their own patriotism and willingness to give up personal freedoms for a greater good of national security. Everyone felt helpless on that day. It was the one thing we could all do—submit to random searches and intrusions and hope that the leader of the country wasn’t a shortsighted, reckless numbnut.

Unfortunately when those sacrifices were made, the man in the Oval Office was an inept frat boy who once used a bullhorn on top of the rubble of his incompetency.

But Jeb is his own man.

© Copyright 2015

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Is Instability The Goal Of U.S. Mideast Policy?

Donald Trump’s indictment of the Bush II administration for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks presents an opportunity for more of a bird’s eye view of American foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy that has killed many hundreds of thousands, maimed countless more, and laid waste to entire societies.

As Peter Beinart reminds us, when George W. Bush took office in January 2001, he and his closest national-security staff showed little interest in al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, despite alarms set off by the CIA and National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke. Al-Qaeda of course had attacked U.S. government assets in the decade before Bush became president. (Also see this.)

“But both Clarke and [CIA boss George] Tenet grew deeply frustrated by the way top Bush officials responded,” Beinart writes. “Clarke recounts that when he briefed [national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice about al-Qaeda, ‘her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before.’”

Repeated attempts to get Bush’s attention were frustrated despite accelerating indications that “Bin Laden [was] Determined to Strike the US.” Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.
But Bush and his top national-security aides were interested in other things. What things? Ballistic-missile defense, which Bush had promised in his campaign, and Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Let’s remember that the overthrow of Saddam, euphemistically dubbed “regime change,” was a U.S. goal at least since 1990. In 1991, Bush’s father, President George H. W. Bush, sent forces to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait, but he didn’t go in for the kill and send the military to Baghdad to topple Saddam’s government. Instead, Bush imposed a trade embargo on the Iraqi people, subjecting them to unspeakable hardship, a policy maintained by his successor, Bill Clinton. The deaths of half a million children — the result, among other things, of U.S. destruction of the sanitation and water infrastructure — constituted the price for regime change that Clinton’s UN ambassador, Madeleine Albright, infamously and coldly found “worth it.” (Clinton rewarded Albright by naming her secretary of state — something an enterprising reporter might want to ask Hillary Clinton about.) Bill Clinton also conducted regular bombing raids on Iraq in the name of maintaining no-fly zones. When will Clinton get his share of the responsibility for 9/11? (Another question for Hillary Clinton.)
So the Bush II administration had Iraq on its collective mind in the first eight months of its tenure not withstanding repeated warnings from its terrorism specialists that al-Qaeda was the likely immediate threat.
Beinart writes:

When that April [cabinet-level] meeting [demanded by Clarke] finally occurred, according to Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected that “I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.” Clarke responded that, “We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States.” To which Wolfowitz replied, “Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example.”

As soon as the 9/11 attacks occurred, the Bush administration’s eyes were on Iraq, and the intelligence agencies were ordered to get the proof. Detainees were even tortured to force them to implicate Saddam Hussein, and false stories about contact between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s regime were floated.

Can we make any sense of this fixation on Iraq? I think we can.

It begins to make sense when we realize that American neoconservatives, who include Wolfowitz and a host of people in the Bush Pentagon and State Department, have for years acted as a brain trust for the right-wing of Israel’s ruling elite (Likud). In that capacity, they issued papers, under the auspices of the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, expressing favor toward policies to destabilize the secular regimes in Iraq and Syria, as well as the governments in Lebanon (home of Hezbollah) and, ultimately, Iran — the Shia Crescent. (Hence the general demonization of Iran and the touting of the nonexistent nuclear threat.) These proposed policies would embody a change in strategy for Israel, from seeking a “comprehensive peace” with its neighbors to managing a balance of power. Those signing on to these papers, which were issued in the mid-1990s just as Benjamin Netanyahu was about to become Israel’s prime minister, were aware that, at least in the short run, radical Sunnis would profit from the destabilization and fill the vacuums created in Iraq and Syria. (The papers are here and here. The author is David Wurmser, who later worked in the Bush II administration for both Vice President Dick Cheney and John Bolton in the State Department. The “study group leader” who oversaw the preparation of the papers was Richard Pearle, a leading neoconservative intellectual.)
As the first of these papers stated, “Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” The paper envisioned, bizarrely, King Hussein of Jordan extending his rule over Iraq, a move that the neocon brain trust expected to unite Iraq’s Sunnis and Shi’ites and cut Iran out of the picture. Note how well that worked out.
The second paper, in speaking of Syria but with Iraq in mind, stated, “The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance.” (Emphasis added.) Observe the hubris in assuming that chaos can be limited, that is, managed. (For more on these papers, see Dan Sanchez’s writings here and here.)
If this is not enough to make sense of an otherwise seemingly senseless U.S. policy in the Middle East, we may also mention an earlier paper, written in the early 1980s by Oded Yinon, a journalist who had been in Israel’s foreign ministry. This paper saw the Arab world as a “house of cards” ripe for “dissolution” by Israel and the United States:

Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue [sic] areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today….

Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.

Inter-Arab confrontation promoted by the United States and Israel — let’s recall here Israel’s medical care for al-Qaeda fighters — would suit expansionist Israelis who have no wish to deal justly with the Palestinians and the Occupied Territories The more dangerous the Middle East appears, the more Israeli leaders can count on the United States not to push for a fair settlement with the Palestinians. The American people, moreover, are likely to be more lenient toward Israel’s brutality if chaos prevails in the neighboring states. Chaos would also undercut Hezbollah, which repelled Israel’s last invasion of Lebanon, and Hamas, which refuses to disappear despite savage Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.

The success of radical Islamists in the wake of the destabilization of Iraq, Libya (home of Benghazi, a source of arms thanks to the CIA), and Syria came as no surprise to people in the know. Indeed, a 2012 Defense Information Agency report, widely circulated through the upper echelons of the U.S. government, noted that U.S. policies to “isolate the Syrian regime” — such as funneling arms indiscriminately to rebels — were enabling the emergence of a “Salafist principality” (i.e. an Islamic state), a development (the report said) that would be viewed favorably by the West and its regional allies. Since that time, U.S. policy in Syria, and Yemen (i.e., the backing of Saudi Arabia’s brutal war and starvation blockade), have worked to the advantage of al-Qaeda affiliates. Not coincidentally, in both cases the targets are interests that get support (in widely varying degrees) from Iran. This helps us understand why the Obama administration condemns Russian President Vladimir Putin for directing airstrikes against Islamists seeking to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

As a recent Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, put it, “The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” (Emphasis added.) Hence the suggestions, most notably from retired general and former CIA chief David Patraeus, that the U.S. government side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria — its “moderate” elements of course — against the Islamic State. (Nusra also opposes the Assad government.)

This is not to say that the neoconservative-Likud alliance is the only force driving U.S. policy. It is well known that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states (which are no threat to Israel) wish to throttle Iran, perhaps fearful that a U.S.-Iran detente could be in the offing. Regime change in Syria would suit the Saudis’ anti-Iran, anti-Shi’ite agenda, which is another reason why arms, money, and fighters have flowed so freely to the Sunni rebels in Syria. (If bona fide moderates there be among the rebels, their chief role has been as arms conduits to the jihadis.) The U.S. government, it hardly needs saying, does not wish to alienate its Arab allies, as long as their interests do not conflict with Israel’s.

Thus, we need not puzzle over a lethal and self-defeating U.S. policy that appears more aimed at Iran and its allies rather than at the radical jihadi network that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government should not be intervening in the Middle East at all, but working with Israel and corrupt Arab states in order to create an instability that serves Islamist interests is simply crazy.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by