Majority of $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill Goes to US Military

(ANTIWAR.COM) — The last minute signing of the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill in the US is a big windfall for the Pentagon, who will be getting the majority of the money, in the realm of $700 billion. This includes 14 new ships, 28 new helicopters, and 56 of the costly F-35 warplanes. This $700 billion does not […]

Rand Paul: Deep State Exists, Uses Intelligence for Political Purposes

(TIM) — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said Tuesday during an appearance on The Laura Ingraham Show podcast that the term “deep state” accurately describes how an unelected bureaucracy of national security officials in positions of power exert influence without Congressional oversight. “Absolutely, there is a deep state, because the deep state is the intelligence agencies that do […]

‘Buy American’: Trump to Boost Exports of Lethal US Drones to ‘Create Jobs’

(ANTIWAR.COM) — With drone warfare a hot business in recent years, the US has kept a careful handle on who they allow to buy US-made lethal drones. Reports suggest that’s about to change, with President Trump set to ease the rules substantially, opening up sales to dozens of new customers. This isn’t just a scramble for growing arms […]

‘Blood of Thousands on Their Hands’: Congress Votes to Continue US-Backed Yemen War

(CD) — While 44 U.S. Senators on Tuesday were applauded by peace groups for voting in favor of a resolution that would have allowed Congress to begin reclaiming its war-making authority and ended the U.S. military’s backing of Saudi Arabia’s assault on Yemen, it was ultimately not enough to overcome entrenched opposition from the 45 Republicans and […]

Major Escalation: Trump to Promote US Killing Russians as Proof He’s Not Putin’s Puppet

(ZHE) — In the aftermath of Robert Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian “operatives” for meddling with the US presidential election, President Trump has been under fire for lashing out at everyone… except Russia. So, in response, Bloomberg reports that the Trump administration is weighing citing the deaths of more than 200 Russian fighters – or rather mercenaries – in […]

Tax Cuts Have War Hawks Pushing for More Military Spending

(ANTIWAR.COM) — The finalization of the new US tax cut has hawks shifting focus to a new press for yet more military spending, while at the same time disagreeing about whether the cuts are an obstacle to such spending, or could facilitate even more.

Obama-era officials, in particular, were very outspoken in criticizing the tax cuts for their impact on the national debt, suggesting they would inevitably lead to cuts in “national security” spending as a result.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), however, saw the tax cuts doing the exact opposite, predicting it would lead to an economic boom, and increased revenue for the government, which could be funneled toward the military.

Having already pushed through a massive military spending increase for next year, the expectation is more large increases to come every year going forward. President Trump has suggested that permanently ending sequestration would be a good move toward that end, though in practice sequestration never really happened, leaving open the question of what formally eliminating it even will mean.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

House Approves $700 Billion ‘Cash Cow for Weapons Companies’

(COMMONDREAMS) — In a bipartisan show of support for endless war and out-of-control military spending, the House of Representatives on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the nearly $700 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 that aims to boost war outlays by $80 billion—an amount that critics noted would easily cover the costs of free public college tuition and other initiatives that are frequently dismissed as too expensive.

The final vote tally was 357-70, with 127 Democrats throwing their support behind the bill. Sixty-seven Democrats—including Reps. Barbara Lee of California, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and John Conyers of Michigan—voted against the legislation.

In addition to providing cash for 90 F-35 jets—20 more than President Donald Trump requested—the measure also approves more than $12 billion for the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, a massive boost in funding that comes amid soaring tensions between the United States and North Korea.

As the Associated Press notes, the legislation additionally “includes money for as many as 28 additional Ground-Based Interceptors, which are anti-missile missiles that would be launched from underground silos in Alaska in the event the U.S. decided to try to shoot down a North Korean missile heading toward the United States. The interceptors are designed to directly hit the enemy missile outside the Earth’s atmosphere, obliterating it by the force of impact.”

The House vote sets the stage for the Senate to debate the legislation shortly after Thanksgiving before sending it to Trump’s desk. Because the measure far exceeds the $549 billion ceiling set by the Budget Control Act, “House and Senate leaders must strike a budget deal that increases the caps in order to boost defense spending as prescribed by the bill,” Politico reports.

Commentators were quick to slam the House for approving such a massive gift to the military while “Flint still doesn’t have drinking water, we are told we cannot have affordable single-payer, free college education is too costly, we do not have money to help the homeless, we do not have money to fix our infrastructure.”

Also – the implicit framing here that increased military spending is necessary to protect us from our own President"s recklessness, is just wrong. This is a massive cash cow for weapons companies, nothing more. https://t.co/ZauQXXPh63

— Alex Emmons (@AlexEmmons) November 14, 2017

"We can"t afford to take action on climate change" https://t.co/aAZSbKLlBn

— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) November 14, 2017

But universal health care and tuition free college are too expensive. https://t.co/JiShmRjZ8p

— People For Bernie (@People4Bernie) November 14, 2017

What if we tell @HouseGOP & @HouseDemocrats that North Korea wanted to close schools, take our healthcare away and pump CO2 into our air – we could suddenly, magically find $700 billion dollars for all of it. https://t.co/pa1IYu4kba

— Rafael Shimunov (@rafaelshimunov) November 14, 2017

By Jake Johnson / Creative Commons / Common Dreams / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

Deep State Trump

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) Any remnants of the notion that Donald Trump is an enemy of the Deep State and ruling establishment were put to rest over the last two weeks as CIA Director Mike Pompeo echoed the Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric and proudly bragged about having the president’s support, passionately advocating the use of “aggressive” and “vicious” tactics.

On Thursday, Pompeo spoke at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies forum, sounding the alarm on North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. Though he distinguished between the county’s capacity to produce a single weapon versus an entire arsenal, he stressed the need to halt the country’s weapons’ ambitions altogether (like Trump and the media, he ignored the reality the North Korea has expressed its openness to negotiation).

Pompeo also stressed the need for Pakistan to aid in the fight against the Taliban, which has thrived in Afghanistan despite the U.S.’ military presence there for sixteen years and previous troop increases.

More telling, however, were Pompeo’s remarks at the University of Texas-Austin last week when he spoke bluntly about the aggressive power he believes the CIA should wield.

The CIA published the prepared remarks in full.

Opening with the topic of “espionage,” which Pompeo described as “the art and science of running assets and stealing secrets,” he stressed that this was the core of the agency’s activities and asserted it was all done in the name “of collecting foreign intelligence to keep America safe. Period. Full stop.”

After establishing the necessity of espionage (a practice the CIA has bungled in the past), he shared his particularly disturbing perspective on the CIA’s approach to ‘keeping America safe’:

“The second thing you must know is that the CIA, to be successful, must be aggressive, vicious, unforgiving, relentless — you pick the word. We must every minute be focused on crushing our enemies and providing unfair advantage for our diplomats, our military and our president.”

Pompeo not only insisted that the CIA’s success depends on aggression and viciousness but he also openly advocated American exceptionalism to the extent that he was willing to create an unfair advantage, which implies breaking rules or subverting justice to get ahead. This statement came in a speech where he also claimed the CIA adheres to the constitution, plays by the rules, and serves a country rooted in “deeply moral” values.

Despite these platitudes, on Thursday, Pompeo expressed his intention to further radicalize the CIA:

CIA Director Mike Pompeo: "We"re going to become a much more vicious agency" @FDD pic.twitter.com/KZl6vBb98g

— John Hudson (@John_Hudson) October 19, 2017

“We’re going to become a much more vicious agency,” he said.

It is not immediately clear how the CIA could possibly be more vicious than it has since its inception, toppling democratically elected governments; installing brutal dictators; imposing ‘vicious’ torture techniques against captives not charged with crimes; infiltrating the news media to manipulate the American public’s perception of reality; forcing mind-altering drugs on innocent people to learn how to control them; infiltrating domestic activist movements (including black rights and anti-war groups); importing Nazi scientists; and arming radicals in schemes that ultimately put the United States in more danger.

Pompeo appeared to  justify his opinion that the CIA must be more ruthless with his perception that the agency acts “with a sense of duty, purpose, and righteous resolve,” claiming last week “we’re a lot more effective because of it.”

While speaking in Texas, he also focused in on a longstanding CIA tradition — demonizing Iran.

In keeping with the CIA’s subversion of the Iranian government — its very first mission was toppling the country’s democratically elected leader and reinstalling an autocratic monarch — Pompeo attempted to demonstrate the agency’s moral righteousness by calling out the Middle Eastern country’s Revolutionary Guard. Claiming their purpose is to “perpetuate tyranny,” Pompeo claimed Iran is the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world.

In 2017, there is little debate over whether Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, is repressive (as Pompeo claims Iran is) and a source of radical, extremist ideology that contributes to the spread of terrorism. There is also evidence to suggest the Arab government funds ISIS. Though Iran’s oppressive regime undoubtedly supports some terror groups, these practices are eclipsed by the Saudis’. Further, in addition to supporting the Saudis’ radical, autocratic regime, the U.S. (the CIA in particular) is directly responsible for the Iranian government it claims supports terrorism; that government rose to power amid the 1979 revolution that rejected the CIA-installed Shah.

Nevertheless, Pompeo’s vilification of Iran served to justify his belief that “[W]hen espionage is done right—when it’s most successful—it’s inherently aggressive, relentless, and risky,” he also claimed.

He also enthusiastically praised Donald Trump, boasting that “whenever we’ve discussed the challenges the Agency is facing, he has given us what we need, whether it’s funding, authorities, or policy guidance.”

Despite some Trump supporters’ misguided beliefs he would be an “anti-war” president, he has continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the expense of civilians, saber rattled against North Korea and Iran (to his ‘credit,’ he has long-criticized Iran), advocated regime change in Syria, and given free reign to the military to conduct its operations.

Though Trump expressed brief opposition to the agency when it circulated narratives about Russia’s role in the election, it is clear the president amounts to nothing more than a cog in the establishment’s machine — like every other president before him.

In fact, in the Trump era, it appears the CIA will continue its longstanding business as usual, wielding brutal tactics and selling them to the public as vital to keeping them safe.

Tellingly, for all of Pompeo’s talk of American principle and morality, he never once mentioned freedom — opting instead to fearmonger and offer security.

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Hillary to Trump: You’re Doing War All Wrong

(ANTIMEDIA) — According to former secretary of state and twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is doing war all wrong.

In an interview aired Sunday on CNN “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” Clinton attacked Trump’s handling of the Iranian and North Korean situations. Specifically, Clinton said Trump’s attempts to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal reached in 2015 basically mean “America’s word is not good.”

“Why on earth would we want two nuclear challenges in Iran and North Korea at the same time?” Clinton propositioned. “I think it’s very dangerous,” she added.

Clinton also said Trump’s position on the Iranian nuclear deal casts Iran as the victim in the situation:

“If Iran is complying, which all the evidence [suggests they are], then all of a sudden, instead of working to isolate Iran on every issue, we are giving Iran the spotlight — the aggrieved-party spotlight.”

“That makes us look foolish and small and plays right into Iranian hands,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Clinton took her criticism even further, speaking out against Trump’s saber-rattling rhetoric against North Korea. In a speech Wednesday, Clinton said Trump’s overhyped war of words with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was damaging America’s interests.

“Americans, as well as Koreans, have every right to be concerned about what path we are heading down,” she said.

“Picking fights with Kim Jong Un just puts a smile on his face,” Clinton added.

Clinton did not offer any particular solution to the current conflict, acknowledging there were no easy answers to the U.S.-North Korean stand-off. Nevertheless, she asserted that “cavalier threats to start a war are dangerous and shortsighted.”

Trump’s anti-Iranian position, particularly in relation to the 2015 nuclear deal, makes little sense politically (or even geopolitically).

Regardless, this is the same Hillary Clinton who vowed to “ring” China with defensive missiles if Beijing did not keep a lid on North Korea.  It is the same Clinton who erupted into Riddler-style laughter when asked about America’s plans for going to war with Iran.

Hillary Clinton also single-handedly plunged Libya into chaos before saying “We came, we saw, he died” in a separate interview and again erupting into a fit of laughter over the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

She also voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and was supportive of al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Syria. Her leaked emails showed she knew Saudi Arabia was financially sponsoring ISIS all while she accepted Saudi money on behalf of her foundation.

Trump is almost certainly doing war all wrong — not just in Hillary’s eyes — but that doesn’t mean her advice on these topics should necessarily be heeded given her vast list of criminal and violent behavior.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

President Trump Warns Ominously: “It’s the Calm Before the Storm”

(ANTIMEDIA) Washington, D.C.  — In front of cameras on Thursday evening, as he met with senior military officials and their spouses at the White House, President Donald Trump said those in attendance could be witnessing the “calm before the storm.”

“You guys know what this represents?” Trump asked as he and his guests posed for photos before dinner. “Maybe it’s the calm before the storm.”

When he was asked by reporters to clarify what he meant, Trump stated simply that he had “the world’s great military people in this room,” then thanked the media present for coming.

Pressed further about his rather ominous remark, the American president replied only: “You’ll find out.”

The vagueness of Trump’s comments prompted immediate speculation as to what “storm” he could be hinting at. Presently, the consensus in the mainstream media appears to be that the U.S. leader was referring to the ongoing situations with either North Korea or Iran.

U.S. tensions with North Korea have been steadily escalating for months, with the Kim Jong-un regime refusing to back away from its nuclear ambitions as the Trump administration insists the Hermit Kingdom’s program represents a threat to national security.

On Iran, Trump is currently making headlines for wanting to void Obama-era agreements that purportedly sought to keep the Middle Eastern country’s nuclear ambitions in check. From a Washington Post article on Thursday, which ran before the U.S. president’s cryptic comments were published:

“President Trump is expected to announce next week that he will ‘decertify’ the international nuclear deal with Iran, saying it is not in the national interest of the United States and kicking the issue to a reluctant Congress, people briefed on the White House strategy said Thursday.”

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Rand Paul Is Trying to Force the Senate to Do Their Job — Here’s How You Can Help

(ANTIMEDIA) Washington, D.C. — After 16 years at war, one U.S. senator appears to have had enough. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul sat on the floor of the United States Senate Monday night to protest the lack of oversight regarding the U.S. government’s foreign policy.

As the legislative body attempts to push through the $692 billion Defense Authorization Act, the Republican senator is trying to block the bill from moving forward until his colleagues are forced to vote on an amendment that would put an end to the 2001 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.

Late Monday evening, the Senate passed a motion, to a vote of 89-3, which allowed the legislation to proceed. While the motion limits procedural debate on the legislation, Senator Paul was guaranteed four hours to be able to make his case on Tuesday.

A full vote on the NDAA could come as early as Wednesday morning, which means there is still time for your voice to be heard.

Paul wrote on Monday:

As Congress takes up the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will insist it vote on my amendment to sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force.

Why?

Because these authorizations to use military force are inappropriately being used to justify American warfare in 7 different countries. Sunsetting both AUMFs will force a debate on whether we continue the Afghanistan war, the Libya war, the Yemen war, the Syria war, and other interventions.

Our military trains our soldiers to be focused and disciplined, yet the politicians who send them to fight have for years ignored those traits when developing our foreign policy.

The result? Trillions spent in seemingly endless conflicts in every corner of the globe, while we find ourselves 16 years into the war in Afghanistan wondering what our purpose there even is any more, or if we’ll ever bring our troops home.

If we don’t get this rudderless foreign policy under control now, we’ll still be asking the same questions another 16 years down the road.

It’s time to demand the policymakers take their own jobs as seriously as the men and women we ask to risk it all for our nation.

You can contact your senators by calling (202) 224-3121 if you wish to stand with Rand to help put an end to the needless wars and U.S. occupation of foreign nations.

Tonight, the Senate is attempting to move forward with the Defense Bill. I am seeking an amendment to end the AUMF in Afghanistan and Iraq.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

I will object to all procedural motions and amendments unless and until my amendment is made in order and we vote on these wars

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

An attempt was made to run the clock on the bill overnight. I objected and am now sitting on the floor of the Senate to stop that

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

Tonight I sit silently to protest the thousands of American soldiers who have died over the past decade in these wars.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

We have been there for 16 years. It is time for them to end. It is time for Congress to vote on whether or not they should end.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

The Senate is now in a quorum call, unable to act because of my protest. This is why I sit on the floor, in silent protest.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

I will continue this protest and these objections for as long as needed to ensure Congress do its duty, and vote on ending these wars.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

I sit for our soldiers young and brave. Sent to fight in distant lands in our forgotten, forever war

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

Hypocrites, they pretend concern over our constitutional duty to declare war and then block any vote on ending any of our 7 current wars

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

I sit nearly alone, but that’s fine. I’ll fight by myself if need be. This is too important pic.twitter.com/PRymNnafi8

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

Where is the anti-war left demanding the wars end? Where is the constitional conservative right demanding Congress reclaim its war powers?

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 11, 2017

The Senate attempted to shorten debate & move forward without consideration & debate on my amendment to end our AUMF in Afghanistan and Iraq

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 12, 2017

Senate leaders have agreed not to try to end debate early, and have agreed to four hours of debate under my control to debate these wars.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 12, 2017

I will continue to fight, and if necessary, object, to continue this debate , secure a vote and force Congress to do its duty.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 12, 2017

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

Trump Offers Democrats an Opportunity to Finally Oppose Endless War in Afghanistan

(SHADOWPROOF) — President Donald Trump’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan is largely a continuation of his predecessor’s policy in Afghanistan, including President Barack Obama’s decision to abandon withdrawal of United States military forces in his last year in office.

There was scant opposition to Obama’s pursuit of endless war during his presidency, and now that Trump effectively owns the agenda for war, Democrats have a political opportunity to finally oppose the war. However, at the moment, few are moving to boldly call for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Trump announced the “new strategy” for Afghanistan will involve an approach based on “conditions” instead of a “time-based approach.” Obama’s policy in his last year in office, however, was based on “conditions” and largely why he abandoned plans for withdrawing United States military forces in July 2016.

He boasted of a “new strategy” that involved integrating “all instruments of American power: diplomatic, economic, and military, toward a successful outcome.” But Obama requested that allies commit additional troops to the war when 30,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan in 2009. The Obama administration also pledged to work with the United Nations and diplomatic partners.

It is unclear what Trump means by “economic” power, but Obama and Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani announced in 2015 that “economic reform” was a “central pillar of the national unity government’s agenda.” Obama pledged up to $800 million in “U.S. economic assistance” to spur development.

While one might think Trump’s pledge to “not talk about numbers of troops” or “plans for further military activities” is indefensible, Obama engaged in secretive troop build-ups in Afghanistan. He claimed the combat phase of the war ended but later redefined labels to permit troops to engage in fighting in Afghanistan.

Trump claimed he “lifted restrictions” that were placed on “war fighters,” which prevented the secretary of defense and commanders from “fully and swiftly waging battle.” That is not hugely out of step when it comes to war-making policies.

The Obama administration “loosened” restrictions on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2016. As reported by the New York Times, airstrikes no longer had to be “justified as necessary to defend American troops.” Commanders were allowed to use “air power” against the Taliban when they saw fit and forces were allowed to accompany Afghan troops into combat.

Presumably, the biggest departure may be that Trump will give the U.S. military greater freedom to engage in carpet bombing on a scale that may result in the kind of civilian carnage that has occurred in Iraq since he assumed office.

Much was made about a potential expansion of the war into Pakistan without the full support of the country’s government. Recall, Obama launched around 375 drone strikes in Pakistan that injured at least 990 people and killed more than 2,100 people, including so-called militants reportedly targeted. It is not like Obama was granting terrorists sanctuary.

The war in Afghanistan was launched in 2001, as an act of retaliation for the September 11th attacks.

As of August 2016, according to the “Costs Of War Project” at the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, at least 31,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in Afghanistan. Well over 40,000 Afghan civilians were “seriously injured” since January 2009. The International Committee of the Red Cross treated 9,200 new patients in 2015, and 1,261 were amputees.

It was estimated, as of June 2016, that there were 1.4 million refugees inside Afghanistan and “nearly 1 million Afghans were internally displaced.” There are at least 2.6. million Afghan refugees in over 70 countries.

When Obama was still president, the percentage of civilians in Afghanistan killed by “pro-government forces,” according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), rose dramatically. Since 2013, deaths of children sharply escalated, with 639 deaths and 1,822 injuries documented. The rate of civilian deaths from airstrikes has also skyrocketed in the last two years of the Obama administration.

***

The specifics that depict the human toll of endless war in Afghanistan are what matters. Yet, what Democrats said in response largely suggests they are likely to take a technocratic approach to Trump’s plans instead of pushing for an end to war.

“When President Trump says there will be no ceiling on the number of troops and no timeline for withdrawal, he is declaring an open-ended commitment of American lives with no accountability to the American people,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared. “The American people need to know more about the President’s plans and conditions.”

“To what extent is there a comprehensive strategy, including an exit strategy for finally bringing America’s heroes home? Congress looks forward to a comprehensive briefing on the troop increase and overall strategy as soon as possible,” Pelosi added.

Pelosi neglected the record of a Democratic president, who left office with a fairly open-ended commitment to war. She also seems open to another escalation as long as Trump agrees to plan an exit strategy, which could be set years from now.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is the ranking Democrat on the personal subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the speech lacked details, substance, and a “vision of what success in Afghanistan looks like.”

On Twitter, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto meekly pledged to ask if Trump’s plan would really make America safer and what it would mean for deployed troops. Senator Tim Kaine tweeted, “The American public deserves more details from POTUS on Afghanistan.”

Senator Bob Casey called for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in order to make U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem more legal while Senator Tom Carper offered tempered praise as he recommended Gen. John Nicholson be kept on as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Hawkishly, Senator Maggie Hassan largely echoed the warmongering of Trump and stated, “It is critical that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorists, and we must constantly adjust to the situation on the ground and maintain a troop presence that can ensure that Afghanistan does not slip backward.”

Support for maintaining a U.S. troop presence was also expressed by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and she suggested a “fully engaged diplomatic presence,” as well as a “stronger, more resilient NATO” would be critical.

Senator Jack Reed also recommended more emphasis on diplomacy, contending the State Department must be properly staffed and the budget for foreign aid for Afghanistan’s government must not be slashed. And Senator Richard Blumenthal argued, “Military force without forceful effective diplomacy is no strategy,” before he proceeded to endorse a continuation of war.

The closest any Senate Democrat came to strong opposition to continuing war was the statement from Senator Jeff Merkley, where he proclaimed, “Americans are exhausted by a seemingly endless war. We have lost too many brave service members, and we owe all who have served there an extraordinary debt of gratitude. It is time for the president to present a compelling plan for regional stability and an end to American military involvement — not a vague plan to continue the failed strategies of the past.”

From the House of Representatives, Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley stated, “President Trump has no strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan.” He was disappointed there were no plans announced to “extract” troops from the “volatile region.”

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur demanded “clarity of objective,” and maintained, “There can be no blank check for war anywhere. Committing more American troops without a clear path forward will not lead to the resolution of this sixteen-year war.”

While Representative Pramala Jayapal suggested Congress should listen to Americans who want to end the war and tweeted, “We need a concerted diplomatic effort to sustainably end the war in Afghanistan and bring our heroes home.”

The strongest Democratic opponent of the announced escalation was Representative Barbara Lee, who was the sole opposition for the authorization of war under President George W. Bush.

“I am deeply troubled by President Trump’s failure to outline a comprehensive strategy to bring an end to our nation’s longest war. After sixteen years at war, one thing is clear: there is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Lee stated. “Any lasting peace in Afghanistan must be secured through diplomacy. Further military engagement will only put our brave servicemen and women in harm’s way while doing little to enhance our national security.”

There were very few Democrats, who indicated they would staunchly oppose escalation. Some even did what Trump probably hopes they will do, which is not oppose him because they recognize war-making is part of a bipartisan national consensus in Washington, D.C.

Nevertheless, for those representatives and senators, who see themselves as part of “The Resistance,” this is no longer “The Good War” that Obama escalated, drew down, and then kick-started again. It is Trump’s war. They have a political opportunity to resist perpetual war under a deeply unpopular and despised president.

By Kevin Gosztola / Republished with permission / ShadowProof.com / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

Rand Paul Blocks NDAA Over Indefinite Detention

(ANTIWAR.COM) Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY) has blocked a motion by majority leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) to advance the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the massive military spending bill, saying that the bill should instead face debate and possible amendments. This sets the bill back for 6 weeks, at least.

In particular, Sen. Paul is seeking two amendments, one which ends NDAA authorization for indefinite detention of suspects, and another related to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), something that was added to the House version but later quietly removed by the Speaker.

Paul’s protest is expected to delay the NDAA vote through at least the August recess, meaning a vote is unlikely until September. While this gives plenty of time for amendments to be debated, it’s not clear the Senate leadership will allow that no matter how much time they’re given.

Indeed, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. John McCain (R – AZ) was critical of any delay on any grounds, insisting the bill and its huge spending increase are a “solemn obligation” for the Senate to pass without delay. Other Senators have repeatedly been angry with Sen. Paul for not getting their way on bills, but the military spending bill is such a large one it’s likely to be particularly unpopular to debate, as quietly slipping it through is the way these things usually go.

READ NEXT: The US Army Says It Doesn’t Know What It Did with $1 Billion in Weapons

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

John McCain is a Harbinger of Death, Stop Calling Him a Hero

(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) was recently diagnosed with glioblastoma, a serious form of brain cancer. In preparation for the inevitable end to McCain’s life, career, and legacy — whether he succumbs to cancer or old age — the mainstream media has come out in full force to educate us about the major lessons we should take away from McCain’s illustrious lifelong accomplishments.

The Washington Post writes:

“And all over this world, Mr. McCain is associated with freedom and democracy. He has championed human rights with verve and tirelessness – speaking out against repression and authoritarianism, and inviting – no, cajoling – his colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to bear witness with him on trips abroad.”

Let’s work our way backward.

In mid-February of this year, Mr. McCain made a secret trip to Syria that only came to light after he had already taken the visit. One can only wonder how many Republicans and Democrats he invited on this trip considering Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s independent visit to Syria was severely lambasted by both sides of the political spectrum. As CNN reported at the time, Mr. McCain “argued for more aggressive military involvement in the Syrian Civil War,” a move that currently has no international legal basis and certainly has nothing to do with human rights or democracy.

In 2012, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a slideshow presentation that explained the true nature of America’s military involvement in Syria. According to the New York Times, Dempsey said imposing a no-fly zone, as many establishment politicians have advocated, “would require as many as 70,000 American servicemen to dismantle Syria’s sophisticated anti-aircraft system and then impose a 24-hour watch over the country.”

At the time of Dempsey’s estimate, the Russian military had not yet intervened to bolster Assad’s forces in Syria. But this week, Russia signed a law ratifying a deal with the Syrian government allowing Russia to keep its air base in Syria for almost half a century, meaning the military commitment Mr. McCain has been advocating would require a full-scale war with Russia. In this context, the least dangerous scenario possible would require over 70,000 Americans to risk their lives in the Syrian conflict against a military heavily defended by Russia and Iran, all while the U.S. keeps fighting wars on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan).

In 2013, Mr. McCain met with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in another “surprise” visit. He also met with other leaders of Free Syrian Army units. As far back as 2012, Reuters the FSA was heavily embedded with extremists. FSA commanders also admitted on record to conducting joint operations with al-Nusra, Syria’s official al-Qaeda branch, whom they referred to as their “brothers”.

Idris was effectively ousted in 2014 and replaced by a military commander whose aim was to not only topple the Assad government but also to work together with anti-Iranian groups to topple Iran.

Some years later, we learned that the majority of Syrian rebels share ISIS’ core ideology and have the express intention of establishing Sharia law, according to a think tank commissioned by the Tony Blair Foundation. We also learned that Syrian rebels cannot be divided into moderates and extremists because they all work together on the ground, anyway.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius bragged that these CIA-backed Syrian rebels had killed 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the years – as if this is something to celebrate. Whether we like it or not, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is defending its country from a foreign-backed insurgency spearheaded by the United States, and 2016 it was the most heavily engaged entity fighting ISIS. The fact that 500,000 Syrians have returned to areas liberated by these SSA soldiers is a testament to the fact that the CIA-backed rebels are not liberating Syria but are in fact the very types of people that hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees have been fleeing the country to escape in the first place.

Has this changed Mr. McCain’s position on Syria? Not at all. In fact, Donald Trump’s decision to end the covert CIA program that trains and arms these fanatic rebels was met with strict condemnation from Mr. McCain, who argued that Trump has handed a “concession” to Russia. Mr. McCain appears to believe that attempting the same failed strategy over and over will one day lead the world to an inevitable success.

After advocating for and subsequently praising the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Mr. McCain tweeted a confrontational statement to then-Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that read “Dear Vlad, the Arab Spring is coming to a neighborhood near you.”

Threats of murder and or/toppling the governments of other world leaders aren’t democratic, nor are their motives rooted in human rights concerns. In the years leading up Gaddafi’s death – brought about by a campaign that Mr. McCain strongly supported despite the absence of congressional approval for the American-led intervention – Libya had the highest standard of living out of any country in Africa and provided its people with state-sponsored health care. It also had an inclusive participatory system that involved decision-making at the local level. This system was observed by the New York Times in 2009, and though the Times was heavily critical of this experiment, the system was almost certainly better than the state of Libya today. Over 2 million children are out of school, and the country has rapidly fallen on the U.N. Human Development Index rating.

In the very same year the New York Times observed Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, in a private meeting with Gaddafi and his son, Mr. McCain offered to sell weapons to Gaddafi to “provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its security.” Ironically enough, it was Mr. McCain and his cohort of hawkish lawmakers that ended up posing the biggest threat to Libyan security when they advocated for bombing Libya back into the Stone Age in 2011 (there’s always an arms deal to be made in there somewhere, though). NATO even bombed a Libyan water factory that supplied 70 percent of the country’s water, and as the U.N. noted, it was the Libyan government that was attempting to fix the problem — not the other way around.

Mr. McCain voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2003, and this was not just a mere policy mistake. He even wanted military action in Iraq shortly after 9/11 even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks that took place that fateful day. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the decisions that were made during that invasion directly fueled the rise of ISIS, led to the deaths of over one million Iraqi civilians, and from the point of view of the U.N., were completely illegal.

McCain has also been the biggest advocate of confronting Russia in Ukraine, heavily supporting that country’s descent into turmoil. The man who was backed by the U.S. to take over Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, previously worked as a mole for the U.S. State Department with the aptly coined nickname “our Ukrainian insider.” His approval rating currently sits somewhere around 17 percent. In his bid to promote ‘democracy’ in Ukraine, Mr. McCain met with known neo-Nazis with incredibly fascist policy ideas, particularly in relation to Ukraine’s Jewish population.

Democracy, human rights, freedom. All around the world.

Speaking of championing human rights, why does Mr. McCain have such strong ties to Saudi Arabia, a nation the U.S. State Department admits is responsible for a host of human rights abuses? Why did he work so hard to make sure Trump’s multi billion dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia went through even though Saudi Arabia is launching a war of aggression in neighboring Yemen and committing countless war crimes in the process?

Yemen is the poorest country in the Arab world. Its people need food and an uplifted blockade, not billion dollar death machines that target the vital remaining elements of their infrastructure.

Why does Mr. McCain heavily support Israel’s brutal occupation and relentless bombardment of the Palestinian people if he truly champions human rights across the world? One does not need to be anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist, or even pro-Palestinian to recognize the horror Israel has unleashed on Gaza’s civilian population.

As a person, Mr. McCain is nothing short of repugnant. As the Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan explains:

“He [McCain] once compared the president of Iran to a monkey and still insists on calling his Vietnamese captors ‘gooks’ (the fact that they brutally tortured him does not excuse his repeated use of a crude racial epithet). Then there is his poor wife. As journalist Cliff Schecter recounts in his 2008 book ‘The Real McCain’:

“In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, ‘You’re getting a little thin up there.’ McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, ‘At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.’”

Upon hearing the news of Mr. McCain’s recent diagnosis, Barack Obama stated on Twitter that John McCain is an American hero and a brave fighter. “Cancer doesn’t know what it’s up against. Give it hell, John,” the former president concluded.

This is all the while, McCain receives taxpayer-funded treatment (it was taxpayer-funded health insurance that detected his cancer in the first instance) only to leave his treatment as soon as possible to fly thousands of miles to cast a vote ensuring that millions of Americans could never receive such a treatment if they needed it.

Therefore, it’s safe to say that most of America probably doesn’t know what it’s up against, either, nor does the rest of the world considering Mr. McCain’s ability to interfere in egregious and illogical ways across the global chessboard.

If he does depart this earth, at least he will take his warmongering and cowardly legacy with him to the grave.

Op-ed / Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

A Complete History of John McCain Calling for War Around the World

(GPA) — Earlier this week notorious war hawk US Senator John McCain (R-Az) was diagnosed with brain cancer. While the liberal and conservative establishments are sending their regards, Geopolitics Alert instead compiled a list of reasons why we don’t care about McCain.

The list is of course a history of all the instances McCain has called for US-led intervention around the world. There’s obviously a long history here, so Geopolitics Alert has compiled the largest examples from Europe to Asia. We’ll start with the obvious wars first.

Afghanistan and Iraq

Obviously every US senator (besides California’s Barbara Lee) voted to give president George W. Bush the power to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11th. However, McCain wasn’t happy with just moving to invade Afghanistan. No, he had other targets on his mind as early as the day after the towers fell.

Despite McCain’s claim in 2014 that “the Iraq war probably wouldn’t have happened” if he had won the 2000 Republican primary and then general election, this assertion seems ridiculous. On September 12th 2001, McCain appeared on MSNBC presenting a long list of countries he felt were providing a “safe harbor” to groups like al Qaeda. This list of course included Iraq and several other countries that appear later on this list.

Syria

Another country on that 2001 list (of course) was Syria. Now, the Bush regime may have never gotten a chance to continue toppling Mideast countries (thanks to the failure in Iraq and the exposure of that war being sold on lies). But McCain seemingly never lost sight of his hatred for Bashar Al-Assad.

Shortly after the Arab Spring “broke out” in Syria, McCain – and his constant partner in war crimes Sen. Lindsey Graham – quickly found communication channels with the “Syrian opposition.” Just a few short months after the US endorsed protests in Syria (even having their ambassador attend), McCain and Graham began calling for arms to start flowing to the Free Syrian Army and other “rebel” groups.

Libya

McCain’s plans for Syria never quite worked the way he wanted but he probably should’ve know they would never yield a positive result. If McCain didn’t want to look at Iraq to prove that point, he had another more recent example he could’ve used: the NATO intervention in Libya.

It was less than a year before McCain wanted to arm Syrian takfiris that he had supported with the bombing and no fly zones in Libya. McCain even wanted tougher actions against the country. Which has now become an anarchic Wild West that’s home to all sorts of horrors from the Islamic State to a new slave trade.

West and Central Africa

McCain is also a champion of the “war on terror” in other parts of Africa. While McCain hasn’t directly supported terrorists in some countries in Africa, he still has called for more US intervention across the continent.

This list includes countries dealing with Islamic insurgencies, such as Mali. McCain has also called for plans like “deploying Special Forces” to rescue girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria and intervention in Sudan, where McCain and his wife have invested money for some time.

Iran

Another country on the list of hated nations originally put forth by Bush undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, and also another long time target of McCain, is of course Iran.

Although McCain has always said “he prays” there will never be at war with Iran, the man constantly calls for it and even jokes about bombing the country when he feels the mood is right. The truth of the matter is, McCain’s positions towards Iran are so hostile that even flagship neoconservative institutions like the Cato Institute think he is too hawkish.

Bosnia and Kosovo

But McCain isn’t satisfied with just backing salafi jihadists in the traditional Middle East and North African theaters. He’s also backed violent radicals across the fringes of Europe. This trend really started in the mid 1990’s when McCain was a vocal supporter of then president Bill Clinton’s war in Bosnia.

Many of the Muslims traveling to Bosnia joining the mujahideen there have joined groups like IS in recent years. And IS flags can occasionally be seen in the Sunni areas of Bosnia now. McCain was still backing potential takfiri movements, recently accusing Russia of interfering in local affairs, and calling for more US intervention in the country.

McCain made similar decisions when he advocated US intervention in Kosovo in the late 90’s. In the Kosovo conflict, McCain backed the Kosovo Liberation Army: a genocidal jihadist organization with ties to Al Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden.

Ukraine

Don’t be fooled into thinking that McCain only supports jihadists in Eastern Europe though! He also backs the overt Nazis acting as death squads for Kiev in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict.

This of course started in 2014, but McCain has continued to pledge support for Kiev’s crimes in the Donbass region to this day. This is all par for the course in McCain’s larger theme of challenging Russia– the country he believes controls the separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Russia

The story of McCain’s hatred of Russia spans back to the Cold War. We won’t get into McCain’s fear of communism that’s evolved into just general Russophobia. But we will say he didn’t have many excuses to focus on making threats towards Moscow for a good 15-20 year stretch.

This changed in 2008, with the war in South Ossetia between Georgia and Russia. During this conflict McCain was the loudest voice saying the US “should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation.”

This same situation repeated in Ukraine in 2014 but McCain’s worst comments came this year. As soon as the US Intelligence Community’s accused Russia of interference in the 2016 US elections– and without any evidence– McCain was first to say the event was an “act of war.”

North Korea

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DRPK/North Korea) was also an early target of McCain’s making his September 12th wish list. More recently though, the restyled “Trump opponent” McCain was all-in on the new regime’s saber rattling. Calling on Trump to strike the nuclear armed country.

Bonus: China

China is kind of in its own class with McCain, who’s made strange vague threats towards the country in the past. Such as “the Arab spring is coming to China,” whatever that means. China may be a target on the periphery for McCain but he does still encourage antagonizing the country to this day. Calling for things like more “freedom of navigation drills” and other naval exercises in the South China Sea.

So, in summation, next time someone asks why you don’t care about John McCain’s clock running out, show them this article. McCain has encouraged the spread of death worldwide. The day he leaves congress will be a victory for the human race.

By Jim Carey / Republished with permission / Geopolitics Alert / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

Only 2% of US Politicians Actually Want to Stop Arming Terrorists — Here’s Why

(ANTIMEDIA) — One of the few elected Democratic lawmakers with an extensive anti-war record, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), has combined forces with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) to push legislation through both the House and the Senate that would bar federal agencies from using taxpayer-backed funds to provide weapons, training, intelligence, or any other type of support to terrorist cells such as al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other group that is associated with them in any way. The Stop Arming Terrorists Act is so unique that it’s also the only bill of its kind that would also bar the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries that support (directly or indirectly) terrorists such as Saudi Arabia.

To our surprise — or should we say shame? — only 13 other lawmakers out of hundreds have co-sponsored Gabbard’s House bill. Paul’s Senate version of the bill, on the other hand, has zero cosponsors.

While both pieces of legislation were introduced in early 2017, no real action has been taken as of yet. This proves that Washington refuses to support bills that would actually provoke positive chain reactions not only abroad but also at home. Why? Well, let’s look at the groups that would lose a great deal in case this bill is signed into law.

Military & Homeland Security Companies, Lobbyists, And Lawmakers All Profit From War

With trillions of tax dollars flowing to companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and even IBM, among others, companies that invest heavily in weapons, cyber security systems, and other technologies that are widely used in times of war would stand to lose a lot — if not everything — if all of a sudden, the United States chose to become a nation that stands for peace and free market principles.

For one, these companies have a heavy lobbying presence, ensuring that lawmakers sympathetic to their plight are elected every two years. When the possibility of a new conflict appears on the horizon, these companies are the first to lobby heavily for action.

But this dynamic isn’t a secret. We all know that the crony capitalist system that thrives in Washington, D.C., is the very bread and butter of politics in America. After all, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the nation in his farewell address in 1961 that “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” were becoming the great powers behind U.S. politics, and that if we weren’t weary of this influence, we would risk living in a perpetual state of war.

Still, we allowed it to take over. And there isn’t one industry powerful enough to counter this destructive authority.

With the support of an army of well-established and connected millionaire lobbyists, the war machine operating in Washington is so powerful that anything can be turned into an existential threat.

Any conflict abroad that has absolutely no importance or that poses literally no threat to the common American is inflated to become a threat to the American way of life. They hate us “for our freedom.” Therefore, we must show them what democracy looks like.

Without the same kind of powerful and wealthy team behind the cause for sanity and peace, this army of big money and big lobbyists has single-handedly put us and many generations to come in debt over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and now Syria. And as the marketing machine behind this kind of lobbying effort taps into the social justice trend that has infiltrated every aspect of our culture in recent years, these organizations have learned that they will get even broader support from the public if they add feminist, anti-poverty, and pro-equality messages to their pro-war efforts.

Take the #BringBackOurGirls campaign, for instance, which, as NBC has reported, originated with “Obiageli Ezekwesili, a former vice president of the World Bank for the Africa region and a senior advisor on Africa Economic Development Policy for the Open Society Foundations”  —  a George Soros-backed foundation. In no time, the social media “effort” had become the most effective lobbying force behind the expansion of the never-ending war on terror. And whether it was meant to promote this outcome or not, it helped the United States easily invest more tax dollars into an unwinnable war.

As you can see, even if Gabbard and Paul managed to use all of their time to force the Stop Arming Terrorists Act through Congress so it could get to President Donald Trump’s desk, the powers at play in Washington would do their best to sweep this effort under the rug. Not because individuals involved in pro-war lobbying are, perhaps, thirsty for war per se, but because the system under which they operate allows for bad incentives to produce a great deal of wealth and influence, tilting the balance toward evil.

Without a state that can be bribed, companies would be left to fend for themselves and stay afloat by making customers… happy. And you can’t make customers happy if all you have to offer is war.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

The US Senate Just Voted To Continue Arming Saudi Arabia

(COMMONDREAMS) — The Senate voted on Tuesday to approve a widely criticized $500 million sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, narrowly beating back a bipartisan effort to block the deal.

The final tally was 53-47 in favor of the sale, which is just part of a massive $100 billion arms package.

Among the sponsors of the resolution put forth to block the sale was Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who argued that despite the opposition’s defeat, the effort nonetheless sent a “strong message” to Saudi Arabia.

My resolution halting $500m of Saudi arms sale failed 47-53. But 20 more votes than similar resolution last fall. Strong message to Saudis.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2017

“A bipartisan coalition of Senators just sent a major message to the Saudis,” Murphy said in a statement. “Today’s vote total would’ve been unthinkable not long ago, but Congress is finally taking notice that Saudi Arabia is using U.S. munitions to deliberately hit civilian targets inside Yemen.”

Human rights groups echoed this sentiment while arguing that to continue to arm a persistent violator of human rights and funder of extremism is to be complicit in both.

In a statement released following the vote, Alexandra Schmitt of Human Rights Watch wrote, “Dozens of US Senators just sent a powerful message to Saudi Arabia: they—unlike President Donald Trump—want to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, a country that has repeatedly used US weapons in attacks that likely constitute war crimes. Forty-seven senators voted to block a $510 million weapons deal, meaning it was only three votes short of passing.”

Jodie Evans, co-founder of the anti-war group CODEPINK, had a sharp message for those who voted for the deal.

“Voting for the weapons sale,” Evans said, “these Senators showed that they value the war profiteers more than lives of Yemenis and more than US national security.”

If lawmakers really cared about national security, she asked, “would they vote to arm the regime most responsible for the spread of the Wahhabist ideology that forms the underpinnings of terrorist groups from Al Qaeda to ISIS? Would they vote to arm the regime that has funded and supported these terrorist groups?”

Yemenis, the victims of U.S.-backed Saudi aggression, feel “abandoned and betrayed” by the continued arms flow, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Ali Mohammed Murshed, a 32-year-old delivery man from Sana’a, spoke to the Times and exemplified how repeated arms deals in the face of Yemeni suffering only fuels anti-American sentiment in the country.

“There is nothing in this world that I hate more than Americans,” Murshed said.

“With all the arms they have given to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis have achieved nothing after more than two years but killing civilians and destroying infrastructure,” he concluded.

U.S. Senate Votes on Blocking Portion of Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia | read more here: https://t.co/5Ew8RdKTpj pic.twitter.com/cR21QgfcpT

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 13, 2017

Watch Below: Co-Sponsor of the Bill, Rand Paul’s Speech on the Saudi Arabia Arms Deal

by Jake Johnson / Creative Commons / Common Dreams / Report a typo