The Pakistani Role and what should we do about it?

Did the Paks know? Short answer, I'm guessing, probably. So, what do you want to do about it? Invade? Good luck. Bomb? We do that a lot. If it worked we would have won Nam and Afghanistan would be a liberal democracy now. Oh yeah, there was Serbia, but if you remember, we bombed because we added some conditions to the peace agreement and the Serbs rejected them. We bombed and then agreed to the conditions. We have since gone back on them.

Since the usual diplomatic methods, bombing and invasion don't look so hot, let's leave. Unless you believe there is a solution instead of an outcome, it is the only sensible route.

A number of years before 911, Harry Browne said "we have a very strong national offense, but a very weak national defense." The felling of the Towers proved his point. What has changed? Not sure. A lot of security theater and a country on lockdown with swat team a growth industry, but it is not getting better.

Does the word Pyrrhic come to mind?

My fellow countrymen are not fond of studying history. Believe me on this. I was a history nerd and generally kept it to myself. My abysmally low level of popularity could only get worse. The few readers of this blog are probably more aware than the general population, but I shall recap the career of The Macedonian general Pyrrhus.

Southern Greece was over time being subjugated by Rome. One of the Greek states, Tarentum, requested the help of Pyrrhus. He came over with an army and beat the Romans in a few battles. The problem was, the Romans, though defeated on the field, managed to kill so many of Pyrrhus men that he was not winning the attrition aspect of the war. After being congratulated on one of his victories, he has said to have said, "Another victory like this and I shall go home without an army."*

It is the classic explanation of the game not being worth the candle. Was it really worth it to invade a country to chase someone who might have eventually been apprehended with good intel? Maybe, but I disagree.

Here is the Neutralist corollary to Pyrrhus, "One more war like this and we go home without out an economy." Well, maybe we won't have one anyway. I could have put it better, but I hope you get the point.

Declare Victory and Leave

Yes, Bin Laden is dead. He will not be missed. Moi, I would have rather he had been captured and interrogated. "First question, how'd ya manage to live large instead of that cave you supposedly had to inhabit?"

Of course there are many questions for others as well. Our intel services, what took so long? The Paks, well, I've got a long list for our "allies."

Suffice it to say, our Afpak and Iraq advetures in revenge for 911 led to another equivalent in deaths of American military personnel. Yeah we slaughtered a lot of them, big whoop. We have gotten nothing real out of this. We are broke.

Come home America.

Vittorio Arrigoni, and neutralism

I know little of Mr. Arrigoni other than he was in Gaza following the example of Rachel Corrie. One must assume he was prepared to die for his beliefs. Unexpectedly, he was not killed bearing witness to Israeli oppression, but by a rival Palestinian group.

Though the Neutralist does not know the exact details, just the broad outline, it is enough to expound on. There is an Irish saying we heard from the late academic, John Roche, we feel applies here, Never get involved in the religious wars of churches you don't belong to.

Now we have to trust the Paddy on this one. People who have had their share of intra-national religious battles should know enough to walk on by when they see, say, a Jain and an animist arguing theology.

I don't mean to make light of the man's end, but he trod where he could only know so much of struggle that he stepped in. So it is with our involvement in all the squabbles we have made our own and most recently Libya. We at the Neutralist offer up a Kool Aid Free Zone.

I'm stealing from The Agitator, it's just too good

Mr. Radley Balko aka The Agitator posted this with attribution and I am doing the same. It speaks for itself. Snake handling moves left.

Wishing That Heroes, They Truly Exist

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.”

–Britney Spears, in 2003, commenting on the war in Iraq.

“But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I’d literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he’s smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust him, and I still do.”

– Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum, in 2011, on Obama’s war in Libya.

(Hat tip: Jeromee P. Snash.)

Neutralist slam dunk by Mish!

At MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis, Mish posted about where the Republican budget proposals fall short. I don't know if he is a neutralist, but he sure reads like one. Here is what he wrote about defense:

What About Defense Spending?

Can we really be serious about tackling the deficit while doing nothing about defense spending? I think not, and Ryan wimps out big time by failing to address it.

The United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. We have troops in 140 countries. Yet, the simple fact of the matter is the US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.

If other countries want our troops, perhaps they should pay us. However, it would be better yet if we would simply leave on our own accord.

As long as we are packing our bags, we should pack up and leave Iraq and Afghanistan. It's time to declare the wars are won and leave.

If we do that, and pull some troops home, it should be an easy matter to cut $200 billion a year out of the defense budget. That would save $2 trillion over 10 years. Actually I think we should cut far more, but I am hoping to come up with a number that has a chance.

Thanks, Mish. It is to the point and not arguable by anyone sane.

It's lonely being the neutralist, but sometimes someone else says the right thing and we feel better.

All honor to the Kamikaze

Speaking tearfully through an interpreter by phone, the mother of a 32-year-old worker said: “My son and his colleagues have discussed it at length and they have committed themselves to die if necessary to save the nation.
“He told me they have accepted they will all probably die from radiation sickness in the short term or cancer in the long-term.”

Maybe this gives us a glimpse as to what it meant to sacrifice one's life on the deck of a carrier. A nation that produces such sons deserves to live.

Let us not equivocate. My relatives were in the Pacific. Japan treatment of POWs was not glorious. The courage in the face of such odds was and is.

Ed Shultz, Chickenhawk

So your man, Ed Shultz, who was against any war W wanted has had an epiphany. Libya is a holy crusade according to the big guy. I think we can parse this. Bush devil, Obama god. I looked up himself on wikpedia and can find no evidence that he was ever in the military. Ed Shultz, the Rush Limbaugh chickenhawk of the left with a smaller audience.

Libya is no different from the other wars except this president is consulting congress even less. Shultz gets the Al Smith, no matter how you slice it, it's still baloney award.



Jeremy Scahill takes him to the cleaners.

The King's, er the President's Speech

As the Neutralist, I suppose it is necessary to go on record concerning POTUS' speech explaining his actions as regards Libya for my readers, or maybe reader, or whatever. There is not too much to opine about. Your man said, “When our interests and our values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.” Of course I didn't come away with any real idea how our values or interests were at stake, but so what.

Now that I know "we have a responsibility to act," Iam ready. After I post this, I shall climb into my jet fighter and fly over to Libya to strafe those MG loyalist bastards. Oh, I don't have a jet and am not really going to strafe anyone. Oh, I get it, the corporate "We." So even though I'm not participating, it is being done in my name.

I am aghast. Just remember the words of a US Senator intoned in 2007, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." I wonder who that solon was?

So who the heck is Bonnie Kristian and why is she making sense? Most succinct reasoning about Libya yet

Surfing a few sites this morning I came upon an article at Antiwar.com. It is a piece the Neutralist wishes he wrote. 10 Reasons the US Should Leave Libya NOW is a well ordered repository of the reasons not to be in Libya. If you know somebody who is on the fence or drinking the kool aid on the issue, urge them to read it. You don't change many minds in this life, but if someone is not invincibly ignorant, this should make an impact.

To show my gratitude to the author, I am going to steal part of her article. Specifically, Reason 9:

9. This goes against our founders’ vision for American foreign policy. Let me simply provide a few telling quotes:

“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” — Thomas Jefferson

“America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” — John Quincy Adams

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” — George Washington

“All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones.” — Benjamin Franklin

So called conservatives think a conservative foreign policy is "supporting the troops" (of course for them, that does not often mean being one) no matter what silly intervention is proposed. A real conservative war policy is to not get into wars as evinced by the quotes above.

Poor Bonnie Kristian, we have closed the competition. There will be no more entries. Bonnie Kristian is the Neutralist Rookie of the Year. Granted, it is not a much coveted award, and brings neither money or great applause. No matter, it's still less of a joke than the Nobel.

If Bonnie wants an 11th reason the Neutralist can supply one. The only successful exit strategy the US has executed was Viet Nam.

David Corn and a Good War

On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the waxworks, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet, the grinding of the caterpillars of tanks, the roar of massed planes, the booming of guns -- after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up into such delirium that if the crowd could have got their hands on the 2,000 Eurasian war-criminals who were to be publicly hanged on the last day of the proceedings, they would unquestionably have torn them to pieces -- at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. Winston was taking part in a demonstration in one of the central London squares at the moment when it happened. It was night, and the white faces and the scarlet banners were luridly floodlit. The square was packed with several thousand people, including a block of about a thousand schoolchildren in the uniform of the Spies. On a scarlet-draped platform an orator of the Inner Party, a small lean man with disproportionately long arms and a large bald skull over which a few lank locks straggled, was haranguing the crowd. A little Rumpelstiltskin figure, contorted with hatred, he gripped the neck of the microphone with one hand while the other, enormous at the end of a bony arm, clawed the air menacingly above his head. His voice, made metallic by the amplifiers, boomed forth an endless catalogue of atrocities, massacres, deportations, lootings, rapings, torture of prisoners, bombing of civilians, lying propaganda, unjust aggressions, broken treaties. It was almost impossible to listen to him without being first convinced and then maddened. At every few moments the fury of the crowd boiled over and the voice of the speaker was drowned by a wild beast-like roaring that rose uncontrollably from thousands of throats. The most savage yells of all came from the schoolchildren. The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried on to the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker's hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia! The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over. The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed.


From 1984 by George Orwell, Part 2 Chapter 9.

The analogy is not perfect, but it is close enough. David Corn tried to make the case that the Obama war is holy and Bush interventions, not so much. There is no real qualitative difference in the policy of the incumbent and his predecessor. Was Mr. Corn ever in show biz. He is quite a song and dance man.

Welcome year 11 of the Bush Obama administration.

Saving Libya, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished-This was even too fast for moi to comprehend

So after dithering for what seemed like forever, A coalition of US and Euro countries with UN authorization is moving against Mo Q. The Arab League said that they wanted a no fly zone and passed a resolution to that effect.

Now that the coalition is sending the bombs and rockets, Les Arabes are not feeling it. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said, What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone,” he said in a statement carried by the Middle East News Agency. “And what we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.”

Hey Amr, sorry about that, but what did you expect? Broken and eggs and omelets, you know. The Neutralist position has always been hands off. Not meaning to be undiplomatic, but cher ami, maybe the Arab League could have imposed the NFZ on their own. Yeah, when there is a cold snap in the place of eternal damnation.

We, at the Neutralist are somewhat taken aback on the speed of the condemnation. we expected a more reasonable amount of time for the League to express its regrets.

Of course, even if it had been done perfectly, there is no chance gratitude would have been expressed.

Sec/Def Gates comes out of the closet-He's a neutralist

No he didn't say that. No one as high up in government would follow the logic to its, well, logical conclusion. What Mr. Gates said you have probably read by now, but here it is,

“Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General [Douglas] MacArthur so delicately put it.”

Actually, there are so many logical conclusions you can get here. At least a good segment of the denizens of the Defense Department constituted a loony bin when they proposed and supported both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Asia, hmm. Why was Europe such a good idea? We are stuck there wasting money fighting a cold war that does not exist.

Fighting Spain, what did we get? A war in Asia, actually three. Getting the Philippines ensured an offshore Asian war and winning that one got us Korea and Viet Nam. How'd that work out"

Every war looks necessary at the time. It's like all the stupid things I did in college. Seemed like a good idea at the time. It rarely was.

And, of course, there is the call to save Libya. Good luck. The Libyans have more sense than all the people who are wringing their hands. They have said, no thanks. Yet over at Patrick Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis, There is a call for intervention. Col. Lang claims to be anti-intervtion, at least by temperament, yet he wants to go for it. There is a discussion going on and it is well worth a look. Link is here. Fabius Maximus has a good overview here.

C'mon Justin, use the good n-word

Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo has a good article entitled Do We Need a Foreign Policy?

Of course not. It is simple and to the point. He could have changed the title to Time for Neutralism and it would have worked as well. Oh well, we live in hope.

It is our opinion that the best paragraph is

Ordinary Americans shy away from foreign policy issues for the simple reason that they know what they don’t know – and know enough to keep their opinions largely to themselves. This is admirable, but it leaves an important matter to the self-proclaimed credentialed “experts,” who are more than ready to state all kinds of opinions without having the slightest idea of what they’re talking about. Unleashed on this territory, bereft of morality and objective standards, these “experts” don’t hesitate to back tyrants with your tax dollars, and arm murderers with weapons paid for by peaceful, law-abiding US citizens, all in the name of “realpolitik,” or some such ideological construction.

Yup, it's all a sham.

In honor of Justin's great article of February 9, 2011, we are suspending our ongoing Neutralist Fundraiser. Our fundraiser is known mostly for its failure. The terms are a minimum $10million per donor. So far we have collected $0.00. It is expected that 2011 will bring a similar level of success.

Jusin, Eric et al do the heavy lifting against mindless intervention. You can participate in their fundraiser here.

Main Stream Media has good article on Neutralism even if the author has never heard the term.

Thanassis Cambanis writes for the Boston Globe. Having grown up in the Boston area, I remember it as the serious newspaper, if only because it didn't publish the number like the Record did before the state went into the lottery business.

His article was a departure from MSM articles on the subject as he did not use the word Isolationist as an eptithet. Still, he could not name the right word. What is this, Harry Potter? Neutralism is "the policy whose name must not be mentioned."

Otherwise, the best article on the subject in a long time. To read Stand Alone: The Case for a New Isolationism you can go here if you are registered at the Globe.

Mr. Cambanis also has a blog here, which is well worth a visit. At his blog, he has written about his Globe article and this is the link for that.

If we invaded Iraq because it was run by a ruthless bad guy, why are we not Invading Egypt?

The Beacon asks the question here.

Just another example of an insane and hypocritical foreign policy. Neutralism on its worst day couldn't be stupider and would cost a lot less.

Wikileaks is just an NWO put up job?

The revelation that AQ is near to a nuke from Wikileaks could be seen as a vindication of The Daily Bell. They have been noting that Assange & Co. have not really been passing out anything that has been truly harmful to "The Elite." The dirty bomb thing kinda, sorta, maybe makes their case. Such a weapon is not something you just order up and that suitcase needs to be as big as a house for a suitcase bomb. Yet that discredited meme shows up out of Wikileaks.

The DB certainly gives pause to those of us not privilege to big secrets. The Neutralist is for transparency. We are for erring on the side of the big T. As Holy Mother State loves keeping even the most trivial items secret. So if DB is correct and secrets are doled out for the benefit of "The Elite." we have all been scammed.

I defended Wikileaks and went after some kids who attacked them in the comments here. I had been aware of the DB's atttude, but was not convinced. I am not convinced now if only because as a nobody from nowhere, I have no access to necessary info.

However, I am not at all put off by what DB is publishing. Their case is well made and certainly possible. Anyway, a little embarrassment for, say Hilary, is a cute way to give the rest of the scam, if it is a scam, credibility.

My haters at in2thefray should start to love wiki+Julian as he serves their statists inclinations.

As usual, we take the Neutralist position, If there is an elite, there international adventure do nothing for our nation. We are better off bringing home all our forces and tending to our own business.

The Neutralist Announces Its Middle East Policy!

Here it is. It should be a shock to my loyal readers (reader?)

The United States should not have anything to say in the matter of the internal politics of Middle Eastern Nations. If those nations do not threaten the American Republic, their external policies are also not our business. We screw up everything we touch.

Some Links:

Col. Lang has a number of informative posts.

Fabius Maximus has some thoughts on various aspects of what is happening including climate aspects.

As somebody like Walter Winchell would say, "Ya gotta get the story behind the story." Okay, The Neutralist doesn't know if it was Winchell, but it sounds good. The Daily Bell sees the hand of the Anglo-American Elite in everything.

Justin Raimondo notices that Rachel Maddow is bringing out her inner John Bolton. If Suzie Cool Liberal Chick is giving over, it kinda give you a reason not to dismiss the Daily Bell out of hand.

Tough Guys on the Net-They're all on the hunt for Julian Assange!

What is it about the internet that it brings out the homicidal tendencies in people. It's not that they'll act on them. They are safe from that. It's just that they feel the need to threaten mayhem.

One web warrior who goes by the name of Alfie put up a post titled, Please please please Julian Assange;STFU

He starts off his offering with:

I am so sick of this fucking guy.

This Australian wannabe Swede rapist douchebag is nothing but a bitter and petty POS who wants to bask in the limelight of others risk full behaviors.Serving as the public face of WikiLeaks this douche tries to ply the waters of anti American feelings to bolster his otherwise meaningless life.

Of course, the crime he has been accused of is not near rape and, though hardly sterling behavior, is in no way a crime in the US, but why quibble. I'll just let you think about the sad fellow's language. Of course, if you are in a hurry because mom will be calling you down to supper, you just have to go with your gut.

The lad got upset with my use of the word "chickenhawk." He thinks it's overused. Only in the sense that say 1+1=2 is overused. Both are still valid.

We had a back and forth of which the most notable part was,"until he surfaces from whatever “I’m a big pussy” hiding spot he is in." Now think about it. He is calling someone a pussy who is risking life and limb. And what might Alfie be risking? "Mom, I'll hurry, please make the Chef Boyardee Ravioli tonight."

So Alfie had his two minute hate. He actually has a following. They were vile and ignorant. The the gold standard for such behavior goes to a fellow named Jonolan, his words are below.

Fuck trials and juries, Patrick – he’s a foreign enemy. Kill him and make sure the world all but knows in fact the we did it.
Hell! I’d be glad to kill him myself, might even make him watch me mutilate his son first, just to add to the fun.
It’d be sort of nice and heartwarming knowing that the last thing Assange knew before I finally finished him was that what was left of his offspring would suffer through the remaining years of his existence as a deformed and mutilated cripple, incapable of doing anything of value and being nothing but an object of disgust and pity.

How noble a sentiment. It turns out Jonolan has his own blog. His desire to harm not only Julian, was posted and removed. Amazingly, an apology was made. He felt bad? Maybe, but he admits, "Some will now say that I’m apologizing because they believe that they can do me harm. That’s actually sort of true." Certainly there would be more justice in the Oz fatwa being carried out than any harm coming to the Assange family, but let's dispense with such silly games.

Jonolan, as low as he sank, then outdid himself. He claimed to have at least in part, caused Assange to give himself up. He refers to Assange's mention of his low deed in an article in The Australian. Nowhere in the piece does Assange hint that he gave himself up because of Jonolan. Jonolan has no shame. He threatens from the anonymity of the internet and then takes credit for a man turning himself in charged for a non crime. Gee, Jono, I'm sure al Qaeda is now scared you'll come out of your room and get them.

Now the cite's owner weighs back in.

@jonolan. I followed your posts on the subject with some interest. The threads got a little crazy for sure. I think Assanges decision is actually a sound one. The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts.
I think referencing you shows his vanity,his narcissism. This is clear in context when you think about those that left WikiLeaks and why as well as the 2 women involved in the sex cases.
All in all you showed class with your follow ups and in a number of ways served a higher purpose. Congrats.
Now breaking is how a former colleague is starting a new site (OpenLeaks) and the fans of Julien have done him zero good with their petty panty raids on MC and Visa.
If nothing else I hope the whole thing cements Assanges image as a media whore as opposed to anything resembling a credible and worth

So, it goes from Swede rapist douchebag is now The previously and WIDELY reported charges of rape are misrepresented. The actual charges are lesser ones and the circus around them should actually lead to an Assange vindication of sorts. Now a gentleman would have noted his original remarks were intemperate. Not Alf. He does remark on Assange's vanity and narcissism in mentioning Jono. I guess he is referencing whatever version of the DSM is out there. Actually, he never gives a reason why it follows. Of course mentioning a desire at several removes to mutilate the son and then kill the man is the epitome of sanity. Thinking that Jono showed class in his follow ups is breathtaking in its goofiness.

Now, Alfie had a defender with whom I also had a back and forth with. Victoria set me straight that Alfie was not a chickenhawk but a veteran. I take her at her word that the whiny mommy's boy sounding lad actually learned the joys of low crawling. She also gave the Assange is the anti-Christ rhetoric. Her last communication to me is below:

The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry). It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance. Assange is far from perfect….he is a pedantic little piss-ant whose only claim to fame is being a tattle-tale. And more than likely, a rapist. But given your tone from previous posts, it matters not to you that the man is a possible sex offender, as long as he titilates the general public with information they should not have. It is terrifying that you can link the word “good” with Assange, yet I find a sense of peace in knowing that as of this morning, the POS is exactly where he belongs.

In my reply, I asked her questions about her assertions:

"The exposures which Assange has brought to light is a breach of security and serves no benefit to the US, it’s citizenry or any other country (and their citizenry).”

Name one bit of actual harm, other than no one will believe our liars anymore. Assertions without proof are not worth much.

“It solely feeds his own inflated sense of self-importance.”

How do you know this?

“Assange is far from perfect”

I certainly make no claims to perfection. Still, I am humbled to know that you have attained that state.

“And more than likely, a rapist.”

Please document the exact charges against him. By the way, they don’t come close to rape.
Good luck.

Okay, so one of them wasn't a question. I knew I was never going to hear from her again. The truth is, most of humanity holds views contrary to reason and evidence. Deep down, these folk know, but to admit that there stated views are ragtime would harm their fragile egos.

It is evidence of my own shallow nature that I took a perverse pleasure in the hands down stupidest ad hominem thrown at me.

You call yourself a neutralist, but you’re sounding an awful lot like a neuteredist. Oh the wounding I felt at the deft rhetorical flourish of commenter an800lbgorilla

Michael Graham would not know what conservatism was if it bit him on the nose

As I drift towards Boston while driving, I can pick up its radio stations. There is a breed of mostly men who are paid to rant on the airwaves. On of them Michael Graham purports to be a conservative. Loving all those, you know, reactionary things like the rule of law, due process, the Constitution. Yup, he loves those quaint traditions, except when he doesn't.

Today, he called for the extra judicial killing of Julian Assange because "our defense department and diplomacy have been blown up completely. Well, if being shown up to be incompetent in your reports, yes he is right. Mr. Assange released true stuff. He offered to redact anything really dangerous. Like the Pentagon Papers, all of this was going to come out sooner or later anyway.

What it shows up is our Hilary and her Department of State as the kids who are still doing student government. It shows us with a military that really isn't doing much but chasing its tail.

The brave Mr. Graham, who "supports" the troops by not ever being one is a chickenhawk calling on others to kill someone withoug any due process. Oh, America is doomed if there is not enough mayhem.

Mr. Graham, a conservative war and foreign policy is that the only things worth defending are hearth and home. Saving the world is bound to fail. Get the right wikileaks message.