The Refugee Distraction

by William Skink

The debate about whether to accept Syrian refugees into America is a bullshit partisan distraction that ignores the root cause, which is American foreign policy. Pete Talbot takes the bait and writes that Montana should take refugees. Great, let’s take refugees. Who cares that we can’t even take care of the homeless already in our community. If it makes liberals happy to think they’re saving the people who are fleeing the region their “elected” Commander-in-Chief has decimated, they’re going to advocate for it, regardless of what the reality on the ground dictates.

The Cowgirl has an even more ridiculously partisan post about scapegoating the victims, ascribing the refugee crisis to the Iraq invasion, completely ignoring what has happened in Libya and Syria:

And finally, don’t lose sight of the fact that Zinke, Daines, and Gianforte no doubt thought that the Iraq war–which largely caused the current state of affairs in the Middle East–was a great idea. They viewed the manchild president, George W. Bush, as a visionary foreign policy maker who surely must be followed, since he was clearly such a wise man. And they followed his vision, criticized all who opposed it, and now that we have the mess, naturally none of them want to participate in the cleanup.

What a bunch of crap. It’s like the last 7 years of Obama’s foreign policy, executed in part by the sociopath presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, didn’t exist. This is dangerously ignorant partisanship meant to keep the Democrat herd properly focused on Bush and not Obama or Clinton.

In the background this morning I’m listening to NPR and they’re talking about French airstrikes on Syria. What targets exist today that didn’t warrant airstrikes before the Paris attacks? Along that vein, Moon of Alabama has a very interesting post about Russia shaming Obama into actually targeting ISIS, which previously the administration hasn’t been serious about actually doing. From the link:

The U.S. claims it wants to hit the Islamic State but in one year of bombing it never really touched one of its biggest sources of income. Hundreds of oil tanker trucks are waiting every day at IS distribution points to smuggle oil to Turkey and elsewhere. Only one such distribution point was ever bombed and that attack was by the Iraqi air force.

Now the Russian President Putin played some “name and shame” at the G-20 meeting in Turkey and, lo and behold, the problem gets solved.

The Obama administration recently claimed it would increase attacks on the most expensive Syrian oil infrastructure which is owned by the Syrian government but under IS control. But it said it would still not hit the large truck gatherings.

And why was the Obama administration reluctant to bomb the trucks that smugglers use to sell oil, providing ISIS with millions in oil revenue? Because of the fear of civilian casualties:

While the American-led air campaign has conducted periodic airstrikes against oil refineries and other production facilities in eastern Syria that the group controls, the organization’s engineers have been able to quickly repair damage, and keep the oil flowing, American officials said. The Obama administration has also balked at attacking the Islamic State’s fleet of tanker trucks — its main distribution network — fearing civilian casualties.

Civilian casualties is absolutely NOT the reason the Obama administration has balked at degrading the oil revenue ISIS depends on. If our president was concerned about civilian casualties, he’d stop the drone terrorism he’s perpetrated across the globe.

So if that’s not the reason, what is? The answer to that question is not something the American public can wrap their heads around because it implies that ISIS is a geopolitical tool of the west. That may go against the propaganda Americans have been spoon-fed for years, but it’s the truth.

So just keep focusing on those bad Republican Governors pandering to their xenophobic base, Democrats, and pretend like these refugees are a product of Bush’s foreign policy. Putting Hillary in the White House is more important than acknowledging the utter failure of Obama’s foreign policy, right?

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to The Refugee Distraction

  1. Craig Moore says:

    You hit the bulls eye with this post. Even Governor Bullock equivocates declaring his top priority is keeping Montanans safe while having no plan or vetting process to do so. Reframing the issues to take the heat off Hillary is spot on. That being said, 99% of those refugees are just suffering people. The remaining 1% can make a big splash. What is the plan?

    • Russia has the plan, kill the jihadists so people can return home. for 6 weeks they’ve been monumentally more effective than the previous years of the Obama administration pretending to go after ISIS while our Saudi pals armed them.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I have a real hard time reading this kind of head-in-the-sand nonsense from Bullock without just laughing my head off:

    Montana will not allow any terrorist organization to intimidate us into abandoning our values

    Uh, “Patriot Act”, “NDAA”, etc.? These laws haven’t taken our values away? We abandoned every American value there is about liberty and privacy after 9/11.

    And it just didn’t start there. The deep state/cabal running the show has been absorbing power in this country since before WWII. They are the largest terrorist organization in the world, and they have taken our democracy from us. After the JFK hit, the country has basically been in a state of coup, with national elections meaningless as to foreign and financial policy.

    The next presidential election will make no difference unless whomever is “elected” purges house. And that would cost him or her their life.

    • Bob Williams says:

      Therefore, once again it’s time for the people to resist!. Remember Federalist Paper #10. The responsibility of Government, is to protect the people from holders of power and wealth. For decades, a leveraged coalition governance of Congress has been voting to protect the holders of power and wealth. And media and red/blue/purple bureaucrats.
      As a result, the Iraq War and 9/11 are like two sides of the same coin.
      Therefore abstain from fault finding disdain . Who are we to place value on disassociating from those lacking a purity of views? Did Cowgirl really ASCRIBE? Does Cowgirl really deserve ridicule, because of one phrase, or is it the current Cowgirl pro HRC phase? Disassociating, exclusive, put down words may yield a short term emotional rush, at expense of diminishing ongoing interest.
      Be not content with anti HRC words and deeds. Both Clintons are of the same voting system. Got to change the system to get new psyches. Public finance of campaigns is what should be on the Ballot.
      Just imagine an instant recall type, two ballot Election. Vote Sanders on Ballot 1. Clinton on Ballot 2.

      • JC says:

        “it’s time for the people to resist!”

        Occupy was a resistance movement. It got oppressed real quickly. How do you suggest the people resist?

        “a leveraged coalition governance of Congress has been voting to protect the holders of power and wealth”

        They are largely one and the same…

        “Does Cowgirl really deserve ridicule, because of one phrase, or is it the current Cowgirl pro HRC phase?”

        Well, you were replying to my comment so I’ll assume you were asking me and not Skink — I was quoting Bullock, not Cowgirl. But since you asked, Cowgirl deserves ridicule when it serves to narrow the democrat party to a conservative status quo. Cowgirl does not have any sympathy for, or patience with those who seek to stir up the dem party and diversify its views.


        Americans are disassociating, which is to say becoming more and more detached from reality.

        • I just can’t quit you guys.

          Where’s that video of you not able to post a comment? You were promising it, and I know you’d never lie. You’re a man of your word, after all. I look forward to it.

  3. Someone seems all to ignorant of what lies at the feet of the Gateway statue of this country: “Give us your tired and poor, your huddled masses Yearning to be free.”

    • sure, Norma, I’m the ignorant on.

    • Big Swede says:

      “Give us your tired and poor your huddled masses and bomb makers”

    • JC says:

      What makes you think we don’t know about the poem (commissioned for a fund raiser to pay for the pedestal) you refer to?

      Did you know that the Statue of Liberty can be seen as a rendition of Libertas, or the Roman god of liberty — a pagan goddess? And that the statue and pedestal were constructed by Masons? I promise not to call you ignorant if you don’t.

      No matter. I find it ironic that people look up to a statue that purports to be a symbol of liberty and independence from foreign control (the book carries the date of our “independence” from Britain) in this country being used to justify taking in refugees from a country that we are oppressing.

      We are creating the refugee problem with our foreign policy, Norma. Plain and simple.

      If we were to change our foreign policy to a non-interventionist one, we could simultaneously prevent refugee crises — like the current ones coming from the toppling or attempted toppling of foreign governments — and reduce our military spending to a point where we could take care of our own needs.

      • Great idea. Let’s do what you say, and stop creating refugees, stop propping up authoritarian regimes, stop creating humanitarian disasters. Of course our foreign policy is responsible for some of the great horrors of the 20th and 21st centuries and needs to change.

        But if your position is that the United States is responsible for the Syrian refugee crisis, how can it be moral to argue that we should ignore it? That it is, as this post suggests, a distraction? That we should “take care of our own”? If you believe the US is responsible for the flood of migrants, isn’t it an awfully important question whether or not we should help alleviate their suffering by taking in some as refugees?

        • 01stevekelly says:

          You can take all the refugees you like.

          I will continue to do what I choose. I choose to be as aware as I can of what causes these problems. At the source. When I think I can share what I have learned, I do so. We obviously have different priorities.

          I am, however, in no way preventing you from your preference: talking about refugees, in this instance. I encourage you to speak freely and support your constitutional right to speak freely.

          But that is not enough for you. You want me to conform to your priorities. That Pavlovian response you so want/demand, of course, won’t happen. This, apparently, upsets you. Try not to let your mind control you. Those little stories rattling around in your head are not real. Take charge of you. Feel free to be you. Allow me the same. I think you will feel better in no time.

          “Mass delusion is an important tool of oppressors because they can’t survive free expression. That’s why the First Amendment’s a target.” – Stella Morabito

        • who is arguing the refugee crisis should be ignored? certainly not me. here’s the reality: you, Don, contribute to this crisis being used as a distraction because you simply exploit it to score political points, and I think that’s vile and disgusting.

          we’ve been writing about the consequences of foreign policy for years. you have ridiculed those efforts for years, despite time proving our concerns were valid and well-justified. refugees are just one of the consequences of what your party has done. and if Democrats get their way and Clinton is elected, it won’t just be more of the same. it will be much worse.

          and what will you be doing about it, Don? photoshop another picture of Ryan Zinke onto some image to score a political point like a high school teenager would? or are you going to put on your big boy pants and deal with the real world.

  4. Big Swede says:

    There is a silver lining in all this.

    “In the days since the heinous terror attacks in Paris took 130 innocent lives and wounded hundreds more, Americans have flooded into gun stores to purchase new guns and sign up for concealed carry permit classes in their respective states.

    And those buying guns include many who have never owned a gun before.”-Hawkins.

    • JC says:

      Let’s see. You’re in a concert hall with a thousand people, it’s dark with lights flashing everywhere, the music is loud and pulsing, and shots go off, what happens? If this sounds like the Bataclan, it should.

      So what happens? Everybody with their gun and concealed carry pull their weapons. Who do they shoot? They shoot each other, as they see nothing more than another person with a gun pointing a gun at or shooting someone.

      Actually, maybe it isn’t such a bad idea that all the people who think concealed carry in a concert hall is a good thing. Darwin would prevail…

  5. Is not anyone going to comment on the absurdity of the country that is causing the refugee crisis, the US, which could stop the crisis this afternoon if it so chose, debating whether to allow refugees from the crisis into its borders? If you don’t want refugees, stop making them.

    I guess it has to be me says that.

    I was listeninging to a podcast the other day where the guy interviewed claimed that most of the refugees were young men. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the source. I have no other information. Has anyone heard similar tales? If so, it could presage major war, as young men normally don’t dominate refugee flows – since our leaders are clinically insane, I guess it would not surprise me.

    • when I say ISIS is a geopolitical tool of the west, that is pretty much me saying we are responsible for the refugee crisis. if you want to say it the way you want to say it, go write a blog post about it.

    • Comment was not directed at you, but rather the other commenters who don’t seem to realize that the whole of the situation in Syria was manufactured by our state. I think I follow your reasoning pretty well, and your frustrations, including those with me.

      Still waiting on your your thoughts on Leonard Cohen. That was a nice tease. Was it Cohen?

  6. Big Swede says:

    Video evidence of who’s crossing Europe.

    • It’s nothing short of inflammatory, your video clip. You have to realize when they make films they can combine unrelated events and make them appear related. They can use stock footage. They can use actors, as this clip obviously has done. And they can use CGI to alter the film, blur out and insert … Video clips, unless it is just someone talking and making an argument, in which case you are discussing ideas, should always be distrusted.

      I would suggest that this video clip is untrustworthy and deliberately inflammatory.

  7. Bob Williams says:

    As before, the first casualty of war mongering is public information. I’m often like the Donald, misinformed, and would so remain if not for William Skinks views and videos, FSTV and statements like this from Khalid Nurredin:
    Add to that statement, the reporting of the last two nights, and it’s more possible that Assad will be ushered into an Exit plan, after the new coalition takes back North West Syria.
    And that Russia would agree to a no-fly zone over an agreed upon refugee resettlement swath of Syria.
    Point being that ISIL already knew it was loosing territory, and terrritorial imperative, so turned retro and activated alqaida type terrorism assaults as strategy, that have triggered blowbacks and loss of ISIL territorial imperative for a Caliphate. Such is only observation and a smidge of looking forward.

  8. steve kelly says:

    Just how do you “come together” with Western (AngloZionist) hegemony? You don’t.

    “So why isn’t the United States going after Islamic State’s funding sources as a way of lessening or eliminating their strength at making war? Follow the money back, cut it off, and you strike a blow much more devastating than an airstrike. But that has not happened. Why?” by Peter Van buren

  9. steve kelly says:

    “But don’t kid yourself, Obama knows what’s going on. He knows the bigwig media owners who sit on the same board of directors with the big weapons manufacturers, the Wall Street bankers and other honchos in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) want another war. That’s what it’s all about. That’s why they have trained all their cameras on Paris to make sure that every wailing woman, every candle-lit vigil, and every bloody victim is filmed up-close-and-personal to maximize the emotional impact and help generate momentum for another US-led massacre in the Middle East.” by Mike Whitney, “CounterPunch”

  10. petetalbot says:

    Putting all the comments aside about U.S. hegemony, the military-industrial complex, our role in the refugee crisis — much of it I agree with — are you saying we shouldn’t accept Syrian refugees? That’s really all my post was about: commending those in office who will take refugees and chastising those who refuse to do so.

  11. steve kelly says:

    Anyone who meets the legal standard for entry into the U.S. and/or Montana should not be denied.

    Now, maybe you can tell me why this issue rises to the top of your list of things to talk about in a time of extreme conflict and deceit. Wouldn’t it be more desirable to find ways for Syrians to live in their native land? Do you ever tire of being dragged around by the MSM, and contributing to TPTB’s perpetual war agenda?

    • petetalbot says:

      “Wouldn’t it be more desirable to find ways for Syrians to live in their native land?” Yes. “Do you ever tire of being dragged around by the MSM, and contributing to TPTB’s perpetual war agenda?” So, I’m contributing to TPTB’s perpetual war agenda by suggesting we should offer Syrian refugees safe haven? Interesting. As to “being dragged around by the MSM ” — that’s an amusing critique coming from the writers and commenters at this blog. I write what strikes me at the time.

      I know that Skink, J.C. and I suppose you, Steve, expect me to write similar posts to the anti-Obama, anti-Tester, anti-Sanders, anti-Democratic Party issues I see here. Maybe I will and maybe I won’t.

      From Skink a while back: ” … how hard would it be for you to write a post about it?” (He wanted me to address Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy.)

      Then, a few days later, Skink writes: “I bristle when people tell me what to write about, or what NOT to write about.”

      Anyway, I’m thrilled that Intelligent Consent gets to provide so much fodder for this blog.

      • Perhaps an effort to reach a better understanding of the crisis in Syria would help clarify the issue for you. It is a quagmire, but one perpetuated by the US, France and Turkey, and of course, Saudi Arabia. US news reporting, when not outright lying or simply blaming the Russians, cites a “civil war,” or internal rebellion against the Assad government, but oddly, one that did not begin until fighters were transported after the Libyan massacre in 2011.

        See how much you miss by sticking only to your trusted sources? Refugees are not the primary issue – stopping the aggression against Syria is, and for that, you need to petition your own government.

        By the way, does anyone remember, as I do, Donald Rumsfeld after the 2003 Iraq invasion, riding high on perceived success, warning Syria that “you’re next”? I remember it clearly, as he was tough guy Rummy, and had no clue that twelve years later Syria would still not have fallen. I’ll have to look that up.

      • JC says:

        Pete, I don’t have any expectations for you to write anything in particular. But as I’m not allowed to comment at ID, if I find something I want to comment about, I bring it here and create my own place to have a conversation.

        In regards to the current topic, I think it is a far more important topic for us to consider how our foreign policy is creating the problem that people seem to find most relevant: refugees.

        If we were to change our foreign policy, there would be no refugee problem. If we solve our refugee political battle (not likely) nothing changes with our foreign policy.

        • petetalbot says:

          But right now there is a “refugee problem.” Should we let them freeze their asses off in Serbia and Croatia while we rectify our foreign policy?

        • JC says:

          Pete, what you see as a refugee problem, I see as a foreign policy problem. The refugee debate is intractable, and serves to distract the attention from the real solution, which is to change our foreign and covert policy away from taking down Assad by funding terrorists to destabilize Syria.

          If everybody would talk about that instead of flinging about bleeding-heart liberal guilt, we’d all be much better off.

        • This will continue to be the only comment I post on a site that can’t even be troubled to correct posts that are demonstrably false, not on matters of interpretation or opinion, but actual fact.

          You are not blocked from commenting at Intelligent Discontent. That you keep repeating
          the claim doesn’t make it any more true.


        • JC says:

          Jesus, Pogreba. You can call me a liar all you want. I’ll video me posting a comment and post it up and call you out. You want to talk about accuracy and be a fact policeman, tend to your own site. You got no business coming here and telling us to correct our posts.

          Once a hall monitor, always a hall monitor. I’ll bet you whack your students’ hands with a pointer when they drop their pencils, too.

      • steve kelly says:

        Suppose all you like. I “expect” nothing from you. I may not agree with IC’s positions or it’s opinions on a variety of issues, but trust me on this, I do not care what you or IC choose to do with your time and energy.

        • petetalbot says:

          By “IC” do you mean ID (Intelligent Discontent)? The blog where you just posted two comments?

        • Honest question here, Pete. Let’s see if you are capable of a look in the mirror: if it was Bush, rather than Obama, whose administration was holding office as the US created the refugee crisis (directly and by proxy), would you be so inclined to cast a blind eye? Would you then be willing to say “We must end the madness!”?

        • petetalbot says:

          We must end this madness, Mark, I don’t care who’s in office.

        • JC says:

          Pete, your autocorrect spelled ID as Intelligent Consent above…

        • Thought so, Pete … Moral coward.

  12. Bob Williams says:

    Huh, this is a refugee problem as a result of ongoing foreign policy. Logically it’s: “both and”;
    not: “either or.” For a tonight view of foreign policy problem go to long interview of Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept and on DemocracyNow.
    Since a US-House of Saud led coalition created the Bathist-ISIL pre caliphate terror operation, all the more reason to well receive refugees from Syria!

  13. This will continue to be the only comment I post on a site that can’t even be troubled to correct posts that are demonstrably false, not on matters of interpretation or opinion, but actual fact.

    You are not blocked from commenting at Intelligent Discontent. That you keep repeating
    the claim doesn’t make it any more true.


    • Pogie, you do not have the courage to face your critics. And you know it. You would die a thousand deaths if you actually let your critics as me and JC comment on your silly blog. You cannot handle it.

      • petetalbot says:

        Why you would even want to visit the site of “moral cowards, political tools and Democratic shills,” Mark? Anyway, it was me who blocked you at ID, not Pogie. You are the only person I have ever blocked at a website. Because of your controversial views? No. Because you’re a troll and an asshole. A redundant one at that.

        And JC, I’ve been through the discussion blacklist at ID at you are not on it. Certain words immediately put a comment in the spam queue, like viagra, casinos and penis, but I don’t see that as the problem. So, I would be interested in seeing that video of you trying to comment at Intelligent Discontent.

        • Show me an exchange where I was an asshole to you, not counting this one where you pretty much beg for it.

          Pogie, sure. He’s arrogant and stupid and mean, intellectual flotsam. But you? I find your writing to be pedestrian, incurious received wisdom, nothing new, ever. It’s Democrat-tat-tat and nothing more. I confront you about those attitudes, but Democrats tend to be censorious gatekeepers who only want to talk Democrat talk.

          I challenge you, you repetitive slinky, to write something original tomorrow, something that doesn’t sound like you wrote it. It cannot be about elections, candidates, or your own moral superiority. Care to try?

          Anyway, I know you so well, Pete. You won’t venture back to read this, as cowards do. You’re safe in your den. That’s all you wanted.

      • You’re right. And I’m afraid you’ll convince me with your powers of persuasion that the CIA was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You’re that good.

        Where is the post suggesting that the attacks in France didn’t happen? I mean, *you* didn’t see the victims yet, so I assume you’ve discovered it was an elaborate false flag attack.

        I can’t wait.

  14. steve kelly says:

    IC=ID Proof I read your post.

    Responding to Pogie’s snark:
    steve kelly says: November 19, 2015 at 5:01 pm
    #1) Abandon the neocon (PNAC) agenda.
    #2) Abandon the AngloZionist (Yinon Plan) agenda. By Israel Shahak
    #3) Repeal the “Patriot Act” and the authority it granted to the President to bomb, invade, and occupy sovereign nations in pursuit of “terrorists.”

    That would be a good place to start IMO.

    • Bob Williams says:

      Steve, yesterday that was a very good three part answer! The above Post is even better!
      Anybody know what portion of Law, outside of the Patriot Act, has been applied to support USA support and finances of various militant organizations in Syria?

      • steve kelly says:

        There’s plenty of Treaty law, U.N. law, and trade law to justify almost any “provocation, ” real or manufactured by CIA, MI6 or Mossad secret assassination squads.

        Why is the North Atlantic Treaty relevant to NATO’s
        involvement? Article 5 of the Treaty provides agreement in advance among the members of NATO:
        [A]n armed attack against on
        e or more of them in Europe or
        North America shall be considered an attack against them
        all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed
        attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of
        individual or collective self defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and
        in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems
        necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and
        maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

        In view of Article 5, it is evident that individual members of
        NATO can participate in collective self defense at the request of a member state 14 that is under a process of armed attack and, moreover, that NATO could participate in collective self

    • You know that it wasn’t the Patriot Act that gave the President authority to attack “terrorism,” right? I mean, surely someone with your depth of knowledge and troubling level of anti-Semitism knows that it was the Authorization to Use Military Force that did that?

      I mean, when you’re laying down such detailed policy plans to solve all the problems of the Middle East you should probably at least know what you’re talking about.

      • steve kelly says:

        Thanks for pointing that out. The “sharp elbows” are really a nice touch, but, hey, go for it.

        • dpogreba says:

          You don’t want to make a fool of yourself, right? It seems someone who’s such an expert on foreign policy and so willing to insult the viewpoint of others must know the difference between the AUMF and the Patriot Act, right?

          I mean, I’m just one of the sheeple who relies on the mainstream media and even I understand that.

        • Banned from Discussion Here. Can't Wait for says:

          Sorry I can’t continue the discussion here, but the champions of liberty here don’t seem to tolerate dissent and JC has taken it upon himself to keep me from commenting. It’s almost like he’s insecure about his arguments.

          Feel free to drop by my place if you want to discuss further.

          And Mark T, I look forward to your condemnation of the moral cowardice on display here. I’m sure it’s coming soon.

  15. Bob Williams says:

    Thanks. I’ve been chewing on that. Maybe NATO could have resisted Assad’s chemical warfare
    irregardless of Russian veto power.

    • 01stevekelly says:

      How can anyone be certain that “Assad’s chemical warfare” was Assad’s? I, for one, will never fall for the MSM’s bullshit without laying out all the evidence so everyone can see for themselves. Maybe I missed something.

      Still waiting for real investigations on most of the big, turning events of my lifetime. My top 3: JFK, 9/11, and anthrax.

  16. dpogreba says:

    I can’t respond directly to your comment, as the thread is too expanded, so I’ll post here.

    I believe that the people who are in Congress and the office of the Presidency matter. I believe that working to elect people who will support a more humane foreign policy is more effective than posting often unsourced, unverifiable and even wrong information doesn’t effect change, and isn’t, in your words, “putting on big boy pants.”

    That we can’t agree on this fundamental point seems to rankle you in a way that I find hard to understand. Your site and its comments are filled with personal attacks and accusations of my ignorance, Pete’s ignorance, and PW’s ignorance. Just scan our two sites and tell me which one seems unable to put aside this nonsensical, childish war.

    If you imagine that your site is changing the world, more power to you. If you don’t want to be called out for misleading information, just ask, and I’ll stop. But if you want to have the occasional critical discussion about foreign policy and American politics, is it too much to ask that it’s done without constant, repeated name calling? Especially from a number of people who hide behind pseudonyms?

    Your post is called the “refugee” distraction, and at least Steve (to whom I was responding) has made it clear that it’s not priority. Instead, a magic wand of foreign policy is the answer we need. If you’d rather not have me critique that position, that’s fine. But don’t act like the show you’re putting on here is somehow more intellectual, more informed, or more useful. It’s about as useful as all blogging is.

    • it’s cute you still believe in the Democratic process. but did you notice there aren’t any candidates that advocate for a more humane foreign policy? so if you can’t even direct an impotent little vote to lessen the violence, then what is left? more posts calling Ryan Zinke names? yeah, you’re doing noble work, Don. keep at it, I’m sure your party will reverse the imperial overreach any day now. we just got to elect the right people.

      • dpogreba says:

        Comment removed by JC.

        Don, outing of anonymous authors here is reason to ban you from this site. Skink and I will talk about this further, how to proceed.

Leave a Reply