John McCain: Lap Dog Of Barack Obama, The Saudi Royals — Or Both

Senator Rand Paul, at one of his many campaign stops for his presidential run, referred to Senator John McCain as a “lap dog” to President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Many believe the proper description of Senator McCain’s relationship to Barack Obama should have been “yelping lap dog.” When Obama bows to Saudi royalty, Senator McCain is there to hold his hand.

On January 27th of this year, Senator McCain dutifully traveled with President Obama to Saudi Arabia to pay his respects to the newest Sunni despot, King Salman. McCain brought support for President Obama’s homage to the new despot in the form of two former Secretaries of State who served in Republican administrations, James A. Baker III and Condoleezza Rice.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined with Senator McCain and President Obama and other high American officials in the rather feudal ceremony of celebrating the lordship of the new King of Saudi Arabia, who apparently outranks all other world leaders. (Vice President Joe Biden showed up to slobber over the King a week later.)

Standing by President Obama on his pilgrimage to show reverence for King Salman was not enough; the yelping lap dog keeps pressing President Obama to be even more faithful to the wishes of the Sunni King. In Iran, for example, Senator McCain wants the military strikes favored by Saudi Arabia, regardless of the cost in American lives or the resulting chaos and war in the Middle East. Iran has a population of nearly 80 million, and cannot be so easily defeated or toppled as was the government of Yemen in the “Arab Spring” at the request of King Abdullah.

McCain has also done some yelping about Syria, arguing that President Obama has not moved fast enough to follow the wishes of the Saudi royals in toppling the secular government there. McCain wanted American airstrikes in Syria, and ground forces if needed, to bring the Sunni rebels to power.

McCain went beyond backing President Obama’s efforts to overthrow secular governments in the Middle East and replace them with Sunni puppet governments favored by the Saudi royals. He actually entered Syria illegally, with the help of President Erdogan of Turkey, to foster violence and revolution. While there, he proudly posed for photos with terrorists wanted for crimes in Lebanon.

John McCain just doesn’t get it. The United States doesn’t have the money or the military strength to actually occupy every nation in the world who has a leader who is regionally problematic.  Syria was not a threat to the United States or to a single American citizen, and still isn’t. Gaddafi in Libya had become an ally of the United States; but thanks to the McCain/Obama intervention in that nation, the place is in chaos and is an exporter of terrorists who are a real threat.

The beheadings of Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians on the beaches of Libya are a direct result of the McCain/Obama Middle East policies. The Christians who lived in Libya would still be safe in their homes had it not been for Senator John McCain’s demands to murder Gaddafi and hand over control of the government to al-Qaeda linked rebels. And in Syria, tens of thousands of Christians whose families have ancestry back to the time of the Apostles of Jesus have been forced to flee their homes. Currently, mortars are being supplied to the rebels who are firing on Christian churches in Damascus, the roots of which run back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

This April, Senator John McCain announced that he will run for a sixth term in the Senate. He was first elected to the House in 1982 and then to the Senate in 1986. He was sworn in to the Senate in January 1987. As of 2015, he has been on Capitol Hill a total of thirty-two years.

During that time, McCain has been the leading hawk on Capitol Hill, voting for every military intervention anywhere, regardless of who the president was at the time. He sided with President Bill Clinton in bombing Christian Serbia back to the dark ages to protect Muslim extremists, and he endorsed President Obama’s drone campaign that has killed hundreds of innocent civilians in four different nations. He even endorsed the killing of American citizens abroad with no trial, even if they are not armed, should a president consider them a threat.

Senator McCain has on numerous occasions supported the overthrow of the governments of sovereign nations, even those with democratically elected governments. McCain traveled to Kiev in 2014 and led a rally of Ukrainian nationalists in Independence Square calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of that nation. With the support of Senator McCain, President Obama, and CIA funding, the democratically elected government in Ukraine did fall, causing the intervention of Russia to protect its own naval assets in the Crimea. McCain’s influence as a powerful Senator sitting in the corner of President Obama has brought Russia and the United States back into a Cold War relationship. Had he been elected, we may well have found ourselves in a hot, rather than cold, war with Russia.

Last year, I attended a GOP fundraising event near Capitol Hill that included two congressmen. The subject of Senator McCain came up, and someone present said: “We can fix the damage done by Obama; just thank God that John McCain was not elected president because we can’t fix what is left after a nuclear war.” Virtually everyone in the room said “Amen” simultaneously.

Sadly, Senator McCain does not realize how much practically everyone on Capitol Hill, except Senator Lindsey Graham, dislikes him. Because of his long captivity as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, and the torture he endured there, he is treated with respect even by those who can’t stand to be in the same room with him. McCain takes this to mean that everyone agrees with him, even with his angry rants which echo down the halls of Congress on a regular basis.

I am no psychologist, but I have a sense that the torture and isolation McCain endured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam has much to do with his violent tendencies and eagerness to take military action just about everywhere in the world, for what he believes is even the slightest affront to our nation.

We live in a competitive capitalist world. Attempting to isolate and economically punish competitors we disagree with politically only hurts us. Dozens of American companies have been devastated financially by the “sanctions” on Russia, which only temporarily affected that nation because it is the seventh largest economy in the world. Every nation in Central and South America, as well as Africa and Asia, ignored the American and European “sanctions.” The Russian ruble took a dive last year, but has risen 35% so far this year. What exactly was gained for Americans? The CIA plan so loved by John McCain to take over Russia’s only warm water port failed, and now nuclear-equipped bombers are stationed in the Crimea instead of antiquated naval vessels. Meanwhile, the economy of the Ukraine has been destroyed.

The 1960’s are over. It was easy for the CIA to overthrow leftist governments in Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile back then; but that strategy just hasn’t worked well recently in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, or Libya. The world is more complex, and men such as McCain who can only think in terms of black and white are not an asset.

Just as the 1960’s are over, it is time for John McCain’s political career to be over. There is just no place in the Senate for a Republican, bellicose, ‘war is always the answer’, yelping lapdog for the Saudi royals and Barack Obama. John McCain needs to be sitting in front of a TV in a room with pastel walls in Arizona, not on Fox News promoting world disorder.

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Blunders During Meeting With Saudi Princes At White House

Yesterday, the two highest-ranking Saudi officials after King Salman visited President Obama at the White House.

As we reported earlier this week, King Salman decided to stay away from the Gulf summit at Camp David because of his discontent with Obama’s policies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Egypt, and his policies toward Iran’s nuclear program and aggressive drive for regional harmony.

One might think things couldn’t get worse in U.S.-Saudi relations.

But, after the president blundered in his remarks during the reception of Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the sense in Saudi Arabia and other countries that the U.S. president doesn’t know what he’s doing will have been deepened.

Here’s what Obama said:

Well, it’s wonderful to welcome back the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef, as well as Deputy Crown Prince Salman. We are very pleased to have them both here today, as well as the delegation from Saudi Arabia. As all of you are aware, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary friendship and relationship that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt and King Faisal, and we are continuing to build that relationship during a very challenging time.

Salman is the name of the King of Saudi Arabia, the father of the Deputy Crown Prince. The name of the Deputy Crown Prince is Mohammed bin Salman. That’s not a minor detail, certainly not for members of the Saudi royal family.

In Saudi Arabia, and generally in Arab society, honor is extremely important, so saying the name of your Arab guest wrong is similar to offending him.

But there’s more.

The president was referring to a meeting between former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the first king of Saudi Arabia in 1945 when he said, “the United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary friendship and relationship that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt and King Faisal.”

The meeting in 1945, however, was between King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud And President Roosevelt. Faisal, his son, ruled from 1964 to 1975.

h/t: Eliott Abrams

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Did Saudi Arabia Purchase A Nuclear Weapon From Pakistan?

Yesterday the British newspaper The Independent and other international media reported that Saudi Arabia might have made the decision to purchase an “off the shelf” nuclear weapon from Pakistan.

The media reports were based on a Sunday Times report that quoted an anonymous U.S. official as saying, ”There has been a longstanding agreement in place with the Pakistanis (over nuclear weapons) and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.”

There were earlier reports about Saudi Arabia’s efforts to obtain an off-the-shelf nuclear weapon from Pakistan. In March, Western Journalism reported that Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited Saudi Arabia and reportedly discussed nuclear cooperation between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia is providing financial support for Pakistan’s nuclear program. It is widely assumed that, if needed, the regime in Islamabad will transfer nuclear technology or even warheads to Riyadh in return. On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia also signed a nuclear deal with President Park of South Korea. South Korea will build two nuclear reactors in the Kingdom.

Israeli media reported on Sunday that Saudi Arabia has now become the world’s largest arms importer, surpassing India. Spending on arms by the Kingdom has risen to $6.5 billion, rising 54 percent in comparison with last year. Weapon imports are expected to rise to $9.8 billion this year.

These figures show that Saudi Arabia – just like Israel – is extremely concerned that a possible deal on Iran’s nuclear program could cause a geopolitical shift in the Middle East.

Sharif’s visit to Riyadh came after Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Rashid Mahmoud attended a series of top-level meetings with Saudi leaders about nuclear cooperation at the beginning of February. Business Insider reported at the time that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could have renewed a secret nuclear weapons pact during Mahmoud’s visit and an earlier visit by PM Sharif at the end of January.

Saudi Arabia’s current drive to obtain a nuclear weapon is connected to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and aggressive politics in the region; but the apparent urgency in this drive was triggered by direct threats to the Kingdom made by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on January 15th of this year.

Khamenei published an article on his website in which he threatened to respond to Saudi Arabia’s policy of bringing down oil prices — “A blow with a blow.” Khamenei claimed that Iran had approval to act against Saudi Arabia. He meant that Iran would be able to control all the arteries for oil transport in the Persian Gulf, from the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait to the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz. Two days later, Khamenei repeated the same threat on his Twitter account.

At the same time, the Mehr News Agency in Iran – which is controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – published an article in which it hinted at an imminent Shiite uprising against the Al-Saud regime in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain.

Since then, Saudi Arabia has acted upon the Iranian threats.

The regime in Riyadh organized a coalition against the Iran-backed Houthi takeover of Yemen and started an aerial campaign to stop the Houthi advances. The coalition has also prevented Iran from delivering weapons and other aid to the Houthis in Yemen, but this seems not to have influenced the immediate threat to Saudi Arabia.

On May 1st,  Houthi forces launched a large scale cross-border attack on the Kingdom. It was the largest attack on Saudi Arabia since the beginning of the air campaign against the Houthi rebellion. The Houthis were repelled by a combination of Saudi ground troops and airstrikes.

On the nuclear front, a similar thing might have happened. Since it became clear that the Saudis backed Israel’s PM Netanyahu’s criticism of the emerging nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers, Saudi Arabia has shown that it no longer relies on the United States to protect its vital interests.

On April 29th, former Saudi Intelligence Minister Turki Al Faisal told a conference in Seoul that the Kingdom will match Iran’s nuclear capabilities with its own. “Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he declared. The prince also accused President Obama of going “behind the backs of the traditional allies to strike the deal.”

Two weeks later, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman snubbed Obama when he decided not to attend his Camp David conference about regional security. The king of Bahrain followed suit, preferring instead to attend a horse show with Britain’s Queen Elizabeth.

This could signal that Saudi Arabia has indeed decided the time has come to make good on the late King Abdullah’s promise to U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross about Iran’s nuclear progress: “If they get nuclear weapons, we will get nuclear weapons.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Is Anthony Weiner’s Wife a Spy?

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack, FloydReports.com

A CIA/FBI agent was responsible for creating the first al-Qaeda training manual from classified military sources; he covertly moved up through the ranks undetected until the al-Qaeda spy, Egyptian born Ali Mohamed, was finally discovered. Though arrested in 1998, Mohamed’s whereabouts and legal status remain unknown. The Fort Hood jihadist, Nidal Malik Hasan, benefited from the same faulty screening.

The Jordanian-born “reformed” jihadist Humam Al-Balawi deceived some anxious CIA agents concerning the whereabouts of Ayman al-Zawahiri. As he passed their guard, he detonated a suicide belt, killing the agents. We were the first to translate the sinister plan of this Taliban spy, which was missed by the CIA but was advertised on his Arabic website for the whole Arabic world to read:

When I drive my car at a traffic police station …my surroundings change by a push of a flash button. I will find myself martyred as I drive a booby trapped Laurie with a bomb heading towards the pagan guards…

Why isn’t the CIA monitoring the Arabic words and connections of these people?

Whether it’s the CIA or the military, sophisticated surveillance is proving inadequate and proper background checks of Middle Easterners aren’t being done. Each example serves as another case in point. What makes us think that the State Department updated its virus protection program? Even more disconcerting than Ali and Al-Balawi is Hillary’s “aide” and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, who has been with Hillary since 1996; we believe she was never properly screened and is well positioned to exploit her American connections for the benefit of Islamic radicals.

Read more.

Tim Pawlenty: We Need More, Bigger Unconstitutional Wars!

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

In election years, candidates inevitably promise voters they will do more than their opponents. In practice that usually means increased debt-spending and expanding unconstitutional encroachments on liberty. Now one Republican presidential candidate has doubled-down on the most blatantly illegal action of this presidency, saying Barack Obama has not gone far enough in waging war-by-decree in Libya — and those who want to follow the Constitution are bead-wearing hippies bent on dragging America down in disgrace.

On Tuesday, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty gave what he dubbed a “major” foreign policy speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. In it, Pawlenty pouted, “parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments.”

“America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal,” he said. “It does not need a second one.”

He fleshed out what he meant in the speech — calling on Obama to “commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi” and recognize the rebels as Libya’s legitimate government. During a question-and-answer session afterward, TPaw agreed with President Obama that the War Powers Resolution “does not apply” to the war in Libya.

In March, Pawlenty told students at Vanderbilt University that getting Congressional authorization for a war, as required by the Constitution and the resolution, is “a very complex matter and it’s not something that lends itself to an easy answer.” He added, “we need to make sure we don’t tie the executive or the commander in chief’s hands so tightly that he or she can’t respond in an emergency quickly or in a situation that deserves and needs a quick response.” Pawlenty told the CFR on Tuesday he would consult with Congress “as a courtesy and gesture of respect.”

His speech and his attack on his fellow Republicans raises (at least) 15 questions this author would like to ask Gov. Pawlenty:

  1. You have stated the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the war in Libya. However, the administration’s best lawyers disagreed with your assessment. Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly sided with them. The highest legal scholar in the administration to hold to your view is Harold Koh, who advocates “transnationalist jurisprudence,” who once branded the United States a member of the “axis of disobedience,” and who often co-authors articles with members of the Center for Constitutional Rights — a pro-terrorist legal house founded by Marxists. How can a self-identified “conservative” find himself to the Left of Eric Holder? If elected, will you rely on the advice of Koh or others of his ideology?
  2. The Founding Fathers clearly placed the war-making power in the hands of Congress alone — in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as well as their deliberations before its passage and their practice following its adoption. Since the Constitution has not been amended, what legal precedent do you believe suspended and nullified the Founders’ intentions?
  3. Since you do not believe Congressional authorization is necessary to initiate hostilities, at what point, if any, would you consider Congressional authorization necessary to continue military interventions abroad in which American personnel or weapons were killing or attempting to kill foreign nationals (referred to as “hostilities” in the War Powers Resolution)?

Read more.