[ARABNEWS] If President former President-for-Life Ali Abdullah Saleh ... Saleh initially took power as a strongman of North Yemen in 1977, when disco was in flower, but he didn't invite Donna Summer to the inauguration and Blondie couldn't make it... had been killed five days ago, the Saudi-led coalition and the legitimate government would have taken the blame, but instead he was killed by Houthis after he formally annulled his alliance with them.
By killing Saleh, Houthis have practically become the enemies of all Yemeni parties, especially given that he was their alleged political facade.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2017 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Houthis
#1
Saleh, Houthi's, Saleh, Houthi's....how bout "A pox on both your houses"
[ARABNEWS] Former Yemen ...an area of the Arabian Peninsula sometimes mistaken for a country. It is populated by more antagonistic tribes and factions than you can keep track of. Except for a tiny handfull of Jews everthing there is very Islamic... President former President-for-Life Ali Abdullah Saleh ... Saleh initially took power as a strongman of North Yemen in 1977, when disco was in flower, but he didn't invite Donna Summer to the inauguration and Blondie couldn't make it... on Monday paid with his life for defying the Iranian-backed Houthi
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2017 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran Proxies
[PowerlineBlog] Like everyone else, I have puzzled over why General Michael Flynn apparently lied to the FBI when he had no reason to do so. We may never know the answer to that question, but here are a few possibly unrelated pieces of the puzzle:
1) Via InstaPundit, Michael Ledeen speculates about what drove Flynn’s guilty plea:
While working with General Michael Flynn on The Field of Fight, I interviewed many of his former colleagues in order to better understand my co-author. Virtually all of them described a man who cared deeply about the truth and presented it in circumstances that were certainly not favorable to him. These people portrayed General Flynn as a compulsive truth-teller.
So why has he now confessed to making false statements to the FBI?
It doesn’t make sense. I don’t believe Flynn intentionally misled the FBI, or anyone else, about his unquestionably licit conversations with the Russian ambassador.
I think the "guilty" plea tells us more about the Mueller investigation, and about the politicization of "justice" more generally, than it does about presumed malefactions by the retired general.
I think that Gen. Flynn admitted guilt in order to stop the pain for himself and his family.
It is notable that Mueller and company have apparently dropped their investigation of Gen. Flynn’s son, and the plea agreement will dramatically reduce the family’s legal expenses.
I believe Flynn has said that he has spent $1 million on lawyers, and felt compelled to plead guilty to something lest he be ruined financially.
2) Then we have this from Glenn Reynolds:
SO THE FBI SUPERVISOR WHO WAS TEXTING ABOUT HOW MUCH HE HATED TRUMP is the one who interviewed Mike Flynn. "A supervisory special agent who is now under scrutiny after being removed from Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office for alleged bias against President Trump also oversaw the bureau’s interviews of embattled former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, this reporter has learned. Flynn recently pled guilty to one-count of lying to the FBI last week. . . . Strzok was removed from his role in the Special Counsel’s Office after it was discovered he had made disparaging comments about President Trump in text messages between him and his alleged lover FBI attorney Lisa Page, according to the New York Times and Washington Post, which first reported the stories. Strzok is also under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General for his role in Hillary Clinton’s email server and the ongoing investigation into Russia’s election meddling. On Saturday, the House Intelligence Committee’s Chairman Devin Nunes chided the Justice Department and the FBI for not disclosing why Strzok had been removed from the Special Counsel three months ago, according to a statement given by the Chairman."
This stinks to high heaven. But wait, there’s more involving shady FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe [Ed.: McCabe is a Democratic Party activist masquerading as a law enforcement officer]:
According to another source, with direct knowledge of the Jan. 24 interview, McCabe had contacted Flynn by phone directly at the White House. White House officials had spent the "earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called," the source said.
McCabe told Flynn "some agents were heading over (to the White House) but Flynn thought it was part of the routine work the FBI had been doing and said they would be cleared at the gate," the source said.
"It wasn’t until after they were already in (Flynn’s) office that he realized he was being formally interviewed. He didn’t have an attorney with him," they added.
Comey was lecturing us about the FBI’s professionalism and integrity just today. Pathetic. This looks like a sleazy, deliberate trap.
There is no doubt that under the leadership of Robert Mueller and James Comey, the FBI became a sleazy, partisan operation. A thorough house-cleaning is needed, although it will come too late to do Michael Flynn any good.
3) I would like to see the transcript of the interview of Michael Flynn by Democratic Party activist Peter Strzok and his colleague that gave rise to Flynn’s guilty plea. What, exactly, did Strzok ask Flynn, and how, exactly, did Flynn respond? Is there actually any clear-cut falsehood in the transcript? I wonder.
Maybe Flynn really did try to mislead the FBI, for reasons that seem inexplicable. Or maybe he was an innocent man, crushed by the overwhelming power and financial resources of the Democratic Party, represented here by the FBI and Robert Mueller and his team of activists. If I could see the transcript of his interrogation, I would tell you which of those scenarios I think is closer to the truth.
PAUL ADDS: Andy McCarthy suggested a reason why Flynn might have lied about interactions with the Russian ambassador even though they didn’t break the law. He wrote:
Even though Flynn’s interactions with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak did not amount to Trump-campaign collusion in Russia’s perfidy, they did show that the Trump transition was dabbling in foreign relations with the Putin regime (among other foreign governments) and was attempting to undermine the policy of the incumbent Obama administration ‐ at least on the U.N. resolution condemning Israel. . . .
[W]e have only one president at a time. It is unseemly for an incoming administration to undermine the sitting president. If revealed, such behavior would be politically damaging enough. Here, that damage of Trump-transition interference with President Obama’s foreign relations would have been magnified by Russia’ involvement, given that Democrats were accusing Trump of colluding with Putin to throw the election. This made any conversation about the sanctions between Flynn and Kislyak look terrible, no matter how innocent they were and no matter how normal for a transition period.
To be clear, I’m not saying that Flynn was thinking this or, for that matter, that he lied. And I agree with John (and Glenn Reynolds) that Peter Strzok’s role as the interviewer of Flynn during the FBI investigation stinks. Like John, I would like to see a transcript of the interview.
I also wonder why the FBI questioned Flynn about his interactions with the Russian ambassador ‐ interactions that were legal and normal in a transition period. I have long thought that it was an attempt to set Flynn up. That suspicion deepens given the new information about the role of Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok in the proceedings.
Being set up does not, of course, excuse lying ‐ if Flynn lied. But the FBI’s apparent eagerness to entrap Flynn makes me want to see what, exactly Strzok asked Flynn, and how, exactly, Flynn responded.
[DAWN] SIX and a half years after the lethal raid on Abbottabad ... A pleasant city located only 30 convenient miles from Islamabad. The city is noted for its nice weather and good schools. It is the site of Pakistain's military academy, which was within comfortable walking distance of the residence of the late Osama bin Laden.... , former US president Barack Obama Ready to Rule from Day One... has come up with a statement that vindicates the position maintained by Pakistain: the latter did not know the whereabouts of the late Osama bin Laden ... who is now beyond all cares and woe... until he was killed by American SEALs in action on May 2, 2011. Mr Obama made this remark during an interview in India, saying his government had no evidence that proved Islamabad was aware of Bin Laden living in a location where the Pakistain Army has a huge presence. The former president’s words are by far the biggest snub to experts who were convinced that Pakistain had a hand in hiding Washington’s most high-profile target in the US-led ’war on terror’. But while it is a real setback to these analysts, it will surely not be the end of the refrain that aims to paint the Saudi murderous Moslem spending long years in this country as a guest. In fact, there could be increasing focus on the incompetency of the Pak administration in allowing an extremely dangerous suspect to stay in the country and operate undisturbed from here for many years. Hence, there is no room for complacency.
There are many more challenges that will require Islamabad to be on its toes. The follow-up questions during the very interview in which Mr Obama admitted to there being no proof of Pakistain’s involvement in the Bin Laden affair did provide new angles. With yet another round of questions about the May 2011 raid and the events surrounding it in the offing, what is required by the authorities and the diplomats representing this country is some deft and cool handling, now that they appear to have a clean chit from the former US president. Most crucially, the country should be able to assert strongly that, just as it didn’t hide the prime ’war on terror’ suspect then, it has nothing to hide now. This is where the unveiling of an earnest discussion on the report compiled by the Abbottabad Commission could come in useful. It is unfortunate that in the tradition of earlier inquiry reports on some of the most significant events in this country’s history, the Abbottabad Commission probe has officially not seen the light of day. It can greatly help in taking Pakistain’s case forward. Let no fear come in the way of a natural desire to know the truth.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/05/2017 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
