Blame Game: The Truth Behind Syrian President Assad's Accusation of Western Hypocrisy

by Nomad

In an attempt to deflect his role in the death of his nation and the subsequent exodus of its people, President Assad said it was all the West's fault and it was hypocritical to cry over dead children.

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal reported on an interview with the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. During the carefully arranged interview, Assad pointed the finger of blame and hypocrisy at Western countries. These countries, he implied, have backed rebels aiming at toppling the Assad regime. 

This, he claims, is turn what has led to the flood of refugees. 

The Interview and the Numbers

Seated before a panel of very sympathetic Russian reporters, President Assad explained that the reason for the mass desertion of the population is because of terrorism.

"Actually those refugees left Syria because of the terrorism, mainly because of the terrorists and because of the killing, and second because of the results of terrorism. When you have terrorism, and you have the destruction of the infrastructure, you won’t have the basic needs of living, so many people leave because of the terrorism and because they want to earn their living somewhere in this world.

“The West is supporting terrorists since the beginning of the crisis when it said that this was a peaceful uprising. The West is crying for them."

“How can you be sad for a child that dies at sea and you are not sad for the thousands of children, elderly, men and women who died at the hands of terrorists in Syria.”

If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That’s what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees.

(For the full interview click here.)

While there is no shortage of hypocrisy in this crisis, Assad's remarks certainly hit a new low in attempts to manipulate world opinion. 

The facts, however, speak for themselves.

"He Kept Us Safe": The Rovian Lie that JEB! Must Forever Cling To

by Nomad

During the Republican debate, JEB! unintentionally revealed his own seemingly insurmountable dilemma of trying to scrub his brother's dismal record.

Tabloid Politics

The agonizingly- immature GOP debates predictably boiled down into an oily smelly sludge, with candidates making ignorant claims about Planned Parenthood and "baby parts", about Kim Davis' right to ignore her oath of office, and about the long-disproved link between autism and vaccinations.

In every respect, it was tabloid politics. 

CNN, which hosted the debates, over-packaged the event in the most surreal way too. The eye-roller opening sounded like a trailer for a World Wrestling Smackdown event or a cheesy film trailer from the 1980s. 

And of course, there was something for Left to enjoy too. The personal attacks.

Planned Parenthood Files Lawsuit Against Arkansas for Blocking Healthcare for Poor Women

by Nomad

In an attempt to abolish abortion on a state by state basis, governors of a few states have cut Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization which provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services.. The problem is the action is, say lawyers for organization, illegal and they plan to sue.

Check out this reprinted article from Medical Daily.

Planned Parenthood Is Suing The State Of   Arkansas

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union that alleges Governor Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark) “acted illegally” when he moved to terminate Medicaid contracts with the organization last month, The Hill reported. “Governor Hutchinson has no business telling women in Arkansas where they can and cannot go for cancer screenings, birth control, HIV tests…

Seriously...

by Nomad

No Ideas, No Options: Why the GOP Alternative to a Iran Nuclear Deal is All-out War

by Nomad

An opposition party is supposed to offer alternatives to the ruling parties initiatives. In the case of the Republican party, the alternative to the Iran Nuclear deal is military conflict.

As Congress mulls over the fine print in the Iran Nuclear Arms agreement, it is interesting to listen to some of the reactions of Republican candidates.
It was always perfectly clear that anything that emerged from Obama administration's efforts would be condemned by the Republicans. 

Had the agreement had the   diplomats of the Iranian Republic marching the Supreme Leader in chains to the waiting American warships, Republican Congressmen would have been complaining that the chains were of the wrong weight or that that the speed of the military escort was too slow.

The criticism began long before Congress ever got a chance to look over the actual agreement. That criticism, some say, had much more to do with the bad relationship between the parties and the Right's animosity toward Obama than the particulars of the Iran deal.