Hi Rad and Group,
Thanks, I find the Saturn/Neptune interface to be extremely interesting, volumes could be written about this planetary pair. Interesting how we all chose outer planets in aspect to Saturn.
Rad, thank you for your continued guidance as we continue to grow.
All the best
on: Sep 13, 2014, 04:31 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Skywalker|
on: Sep 12, 2014, 02:03 PM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Linda|
Thank you so much for your feedback regarding my Saturn-Uranus assignment (and for your feedback to our group who have all worked so hard and amazingly).
My physical condition is rather up and down - sometimes flying high with no pain - other times it can be difficult..... but I have decided to push on regardless as EA means so much to me.
Thank you Rad and EA!!
on: Sep 12, 2014, 10:38 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Daniel|
Hi Rad, Linda, Skywalker, Kristin, Cat et al,
Regarding Linda's very thorough post on the relationship between Saturn and Uranus, I wondered if it was appropriate to add the Chiron dynamic to this particular cycle. Barbara Hand Clow has described Chiron as the bridge between the inner and outer planets relative to its orbit between Saturn and Uranus. Rose Marcus also defines his behavior as nothing less than showing up at the peak, outstanding times of our lives. In my work I have discovered the interelationship between these three celestial bodies relative to the near exact multiples of 7 years that occur in each of their planetary cycles--28, 51, & 84. The hard aspects of the Chiron cycle are frequently flanked by Saturn and Uranus cycle events, and often Saturn-Uranus, Saturn- Pluto, and Uranus-Pluto events as well. The highly elliptical orbit of this centaur, asteroid, comet (your choice) will cause the coincidence of the first Chiron square to vary widely from the 1st Saturn square to almost the 1st Saturn return and/or 1st Uranus square period in an individual's life, which adds a tremendous range of personal experience to the events in each person's life. However at each point in the cycle, the circumstances that emerge are either of a healing or of a mentoring nature, which reflect how the character of Chiron's energy is activating the Soul's core evolutionary theme.
I am wondering if anyone else has also observed this interaction and correlated this relationship to the Saturn and Uranus cycle and the critical role that Chiron plays as a key facilitator in the de-conditioning/awakening process in the Soul's evolutionary unfolding?
Always with great gratitude and respect,
on: Sep 12, 2014, 09:20 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Kristin|
Thanks for your feedback Rad....and for taking the time to support us forward.
You wrote: " One of the core archetypes of this aspect that you could have mentioned is this which, in the end, correlates to Why the Soul would choose to be born with Saturn in Pisces in opposition to Pluto in Virgo in the first place evolving the Soul's consciousness through and because of the inductive understanding of anything versus the deductive understanding of anything. In this way, the Soul them simplifies the understanding of anything, including itself, by seeing the whole picture first versus becoming lost to a specific piece of the picture."
Something amazingly timely occurred yesterday during a reading I had with a client. The woman said to me in reflecting about her own journey..she has North Node in Cap in the 6th, ruler Saturn in Scorpio conjunct Neptune in Libra in the 4th,
It is about going from the microscope to the telescope
and as soon as she said that it clicked...I wanted to include this but I had already submitted my post..I am glad you brought this up because it really drove these necessary teachings home relative to the Saturn in Pisces Opp Pluto in Virgo aspect. I have been reflecting about this ever since.
on: Sep 12, 2014, 08:15 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Rad|
Hi Kristin, Skywalker, Cat, and Linda
Thanks to all of you for taking the time that you have to work on this segment. At the top of next week we will continue on in our journey through our ongoing Saturn thread. If you have any questions please ask them of me now.
God Bless, Rad
on: Sep 12, 2014, 08:13 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Rad|
First, thanks for taking the time and making the effort you have in your presentation and analysis of the Saturn/Pisces in opposition to Pluto/ Virgo.
You have correctly identified many of the inherent archetypes relative to this aspect, and the inner causes that lead to the various manifestations of these archetypes. This is one of the things that you said that more or less sums it all up: "Through denial, the Soul will create one fantasy or illusion after another, these dreams are given tremendous power, they create these fantasies in order to find meaning, as if these fantasies would provide some form of ultimate meaning. At some point, this dream bubble will burst as the only place one finds ultimate meaning and unconditional love is in one's connection to the Source , and as painful as the disillusionment may be, there is 'magic in the clarity'. "
One of the core archetypes of this aspect that you could have mentioned is this which, in the end, correlates to why the Soul would choose to be born with Saturn in Pisces in opposition to Pluto in Virgo in the first place: evolving the Soul's consciousness through and because of the inductive understanding of anything versus the deductive understanding of anything. In this way, the Soul them simplifies the understanding of anything, including itself, by seeing the whole picture first versus becoming lost to a specific piece of the picture.
Really wonderful and excellent EA work Kristin.
God Bless, Rad
on: Sep 12, 2014, 07:46 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Rad|
First, thanks for taking the time and making the stupendous effort you have in detailing all the possible archetypes of the Saturn/Virgo last quarter square to Neptune/ Sagittarius. What you have presented and shared with us is the most comprehensive and accurate analysis and teaching that anyone could provide.
The total depth and comprehensiveness that you have gone into is just superior EA work. The only exception that I took started in the first sentence: "Neptune is the planet that is easily able to go beyond Saturn's conditioning. Saturn."
Relative to specific evolutionary states this is not always true. In the depths of the consensus states, for example, just the opposite would be true to the point of manifesting an almost hysterical holding onto, Neptune, the existing to the existing conditioning of Saturn. This reflects what you are saying about the fear of the unknown relative to Saturn.
Other than that my hat is off to you Skywalker. This is just tremendous and superior EA work.
God Bless, Rad
on: Sep 12, 2014, 07:17 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Rad|
First, thanks for taking the time and effort you have to work on this segment of our Saturn thread.
You have presented some of the key archetypes that correlate with a Saturn/ Pluto square that would apply to some Souls depending on their evolutionary state. In other words the various archetypes that you have identified would manifest differently depending on the specific evolutionary state which of course provides to orientation to those archetypes. For example, a Soul in the 2nd stage individuated relative the the archetype of philosophy, religion, etc would not condition their consciousness in that way. They would orientate to the square by way of intense rebellion against such things.
Using Maher as your example of the Pluto/Saturn square was good in terms of showing how his Saturn work lead the way for his Soul. His is a stated atheist. This reflects my point about the specific evolutionary condition serving as the determinant for the orientation to the archetypes that you have pointed out. To me Maher is well into the 1st Stage individuated leading to the 2nd stage which then correlates to what I said to the 2nd stage individuated: he has evolved so far within the 1st stage that it has then caused him to orientate to religions, etc in exactly the way that he has.
In essence you have done a good job Cat but it is a bit to generalized: Sagittarius.
God Bless, Rad
on: Sep 12, 2014, 06:59 AM
|Started by Rad - Last post by Rad|
First, thanks for taking the time and making the effort that you have especially in consideration of your physical body doing what it has been doing.
Your very detailed analysis of the Saturn/Uranus cycle relative to the natural phases between them that occur in time is just wonderful and excellent work.
God Bless, Rad
on: Sep 12, 2014, 06:48 AM
|Started by Steve - Last post by Rad|
In the USA...United Surveillance America
Seven key points from Obama's Isis speech and what they actually mean
US national security editor Spencer Ackerman breaks down the omissions, inversions and problems of Obama’s Isis speech
theguardian.com, Thursday 11 September 2014 23.41 BST
On Wednesday night, Barack Obama delivered a speech filled with euphemisms, questionable statements, caveats, omissions and even the occasional truth. Spencer Ackerman combed over and annotated the Isis speech in full, to serve as a reader’s guide to the fine print.
Here are the seven key takeaways that underline exactly how Obama’s Isis address falls down on too many fronts.
Read the full document for more
On Isis as a threat
What Obama said: “At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is Isil.”
What it really means: Strange that Obama didn’t attempt to argue that Isis is the greatest of those threats. (Not like any other jihadist entity has conquered territory home to some six to eight million people.) If they’re one threat amongst many, why go to war against them?
On Isis as a threat on the homeland
What Obama said: “While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, Isil leaders have threatened America and our allies.”
What it really means: So Isis isn’t an imminent threat to the US, something the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center have conceded in recent days. The Americans at risk from Isis are the ones in Iraq at Obama’s orders, risking the outcome they have been sent to prevent. Isis appears overwhelmingly interested in building what it claims is its state in Iraq and Syria, not exporting terrorism.
All this makes the current war a preventive one, which international law tends to consider illegal and illegitimate without United Nations sanction, regardless of the venality of the foe or the assemblage of the coalition of nations against it.
On US objectives
What Obama said:“Our objective is clear: we will degrade and ultimately destroy Isil through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”
What it really means: Alas, it’s not a clear objective. It depends on where you put the emphasis – degrading or destroying. Obama has phrased missions like this before to avoid over-promising: famously, with his 2009 “disrupt, dismantle and defeat” objective against al-Qaida. How does the US know when its job is finished? Will Isis still exist in some diminished form at its end? Will Isis hold any territory at all? How “ultimately” is ultimately, and will that “ultimate” destruction occur before or after the US stops lobbing missiles? And so forth.
On air strikes in Syria
What Obama said: “That means I will not hesitate to take action against Isil in Syria, as well as Iraq.”
What it really means: Big question: who will spot US missile strikes in Syria if there won’t be US troops there? The CIA? Syrian opposition groups? Additionally, Syria strikes are likely to take some time to occur, as intelligence necessary for targeting matures.
On involving Congress
What Obama said:“Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters”
What it really means: Specifically, Obama is asking for $500m, and it’s notable that he’s not telling the American public anything in this speech about the cost of this latest war.
Also on involving Congress
What Obama said:“But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome Congressional support for this effort to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.”
What it really means: Notice how Obama has framed congressional support as optional, an inversion of constitutional obligation. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, has declared that he has all the authority he needs – within Iraq, at least; he wants Congress to authorise and fund US military training of Syrian rebels - yet the wellspring of that authority is a 2001 authorisation against al-Qaida, and Isis is no longer part of al-Qaida. “Extremely implausible”, wrote the Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes.
On international support
What Obama said: “And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to further mobilize the international community.”
What it really means: Obama didn’t commit to seeking a United Nations resolution to bless Iraq War III itself.
On Yemen and Somalia
What Obama said:“This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one we have consistently and successfully pursed in]Yemen and Somalia for years.”
What it really means: Very few people who are not part of the administration consider either of those cases a success. Less subjectively, neither has finished, years later, and it is unclear what success in Yemen and Somalia even is.
Obama: “May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America”
And with those 14 words, Obama inaugurated the Third Iraq War, after winning the presidency on a pledge to end the Second.
Religious Right Calls for Deportation, Sterilization and Holy War on Muslims
By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Friday, September, 12th, 2014, 7:57 am
IslamophobiaIslamophobiaYou can’t exactly say that the activities of ISIL have ramped up anti-Muslim hatred in this country despite the efforts by the Religious Right to pain all Muslims with a broad brush.
After all, it is still being pointed out by the feckless mainstream media that the supposed threat posed by the “caliphate” to our national security is mostly hype. Rather, ISIL has given anti-Muslim forces an excuse to give full vent to their already existing hatred.
We are fairly inundated with lunacy, like the cry of “they want to rule the world!’ Which is funny, because the same is true of Christianity (the Great Commission can be blamed for that). It is hardly a coincidence that a Washington State Republican wants to mandate that all prayers at council meetings be directed to the Christian God. Not even a pretense of religious freedom here.
I don’t know about you, but it strikes me that it is not Muslims who are the biggest threat to my religious freedom.
And even while WND’s Joseph Farah is claiming that there is no difference between CAIR – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – and ISIL, we see Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson embracing ISIL’s own policy, that Muslims must “convert or die.”
Last I checked CAIR, unlike the Religious Right, was not advocating a policy of “convert or die.”
And Larry Klayman, fresh from demanding a holy war against President Obama, is demanding a “holy war” against Islam. Klayman also wants an end to immigration of Muslims and, and oh by the way, American Muslims must be deported because “they have no business in our land.”
This contrasts strongly to the smile that came to my own face yesterday at a Muslim mom holding a stop sight at my son’s school crosswalk. I remember thinking, we are truly a diverse country. And nobody seemed to have a problem with her being there, or with making our trip from the building to the parking lot safe. Yes, there is sanity even in Scott Walker’s Wisconsin.
We have Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) calling for a holy war. As the SPLC notes, a Sept. 4 blog post on the group’s site is almost certainly written by Cass, who says Christians must fight back with “overwhelming Christian just war.” The title of the post say it all: “I’m Islamophobic. Are You?” Cass warns that “every true follower of Mohammed wants to…subjugate and murder you. They believe they have been given a mandate by Allah (Satan) to dominate the world.”
As SPLC’s Leah Nelson points out,
That, of course, is in direct conflict with Cass’s own belief that in fact it is Christians who have been given a mandate for dominion. Cass’s mentor, the late D. James Kennnedy of the anti-LGBT group Coral Ridge Ministries (of which Cass is the former executive director), once said, “As the vice regents of God, [Christians] are to exercise godly dominion and influence over…every aspect and institution of human society.”
After all, it’s to the Christian God Air Force re-enlistees are being required to swear in an unconstitutional oath to defend the Constitution, in order to stay in the Air Force, not Allah.
Cass does not, like Klayman, push hard for deportation, though he flirts with the idea of deportation or sterilization as alternatives. This is not out of human kindness or consideration for Islam’s Constitutional rights in this country, but simply because, practically speaking, it’s not going to happen. The only thing that “has [been] shown to work,” writes Cass, “is overwhelming Christian just war and overwhelming self defense.”
Self defense, I am assuming, as when Christian armies marched from France and Germany to sack Jerusalem and kill every living human being in the city, regardless of religion (along with everybody else they met along the way whose religion was suspect, including other Christians). Or when President George W. Bush illegally invaded Iraq, shattered the country and its economy, and created through his maladministration, the fertile ground from which ISIL later sprung.
THAT kind of self defense.
Cass writes that,
We have to face the harsh truth that Islam has no place in civilized society. Muslims cannot live in a society based on Christian ideals of equality and liberty. They will always seek to harm us. Now the only question is how many more dead bodies will have to pile up at home and abroad before we crush the vicious seed of Ishmael in Jesus’ name?”
That last line says it all: crush them in Jesus’ name.
Wasn’t what Jesus himself said more along the lines of “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44) and “turn the other cheek”? (Matthew 5:39).Jesus nowhere preached just war. That was Augustine of Hippo, who lived four centuries later. That same guy who loathed the idea of religious freedom for anybody but Christians. If the religious right were better read, they’d be quoting the hell out of that particular hater.
And then we’ve got Michele Bachmann, still celebrating her own tenuous freedom by attacking the freedom of others. Bachmann was one of a group of GOP members of Congress who, as Right Wing Watch reported yesterday, to “join anti-Muslim group ACT for America at [a] Capitol Hill briefing.” Also present were Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX), Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), and Rep. John Boozman (R-AR).
Ted Cruz (R-TX) was supposed to attend but was presumably too busy trying to find his balls after being booed off stage by listeners at the Middle East’s Christian conference in Washington D.C. ACT for America’s Brigitte Gabriel wanted to give the emasculated Ted an award too (Roskam got the “Patriot Award”) but she did manage to give awards to Alabama State Senator Gerald Allen, who opposes Sharia Law in his state even though he doesn’t know what it is and despite the fact that less than half of one percent of Alabamians are actually Muslim, and his counterpart from Kansas, Rep. Peggy Mast.
The ever-intellectually-challenged Michele Bachmann opined that, “In the art of war you are to know yourself and the enemy…our president either doesn’t know the enemy or he knows them too well” (I’m pretty sure this makes no sense at all) but she’s not alone: Klayman says that Obama is “a Muslim through and through” and Gabriel agrees, saying back in July that Obama is a Muslim and that he is “not only pro-Islam, he’s pro-jihadist.”
ISIL has been a bonanza for haters. And they have reason to hope. After all, even under a Democratic president ,Japanese-Americans suffered for the sins of Japan when it attacked Pearl Harbor. They probably do not see their own hopes as unreasonable should Republicans win in 2014 and 2016. And you know what? I can’t say they are wrong. Because it CAN happen here. It can happen anywhere.
Bernie Sanders Calls Republican Blocking Of Citizens United Amendment A Defeat For Democracy
By: Jason Easley
Thursday, September, 11th, 2014, 3:09 pm
After Senate Republicans blocked a constitutional amendment that would have overturned Citizens United, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called the Koch victory a defeat for democracy.
In a statement, Sanders said, “I am extremely disappointed that not one Republican voted today to stop billionaires from buying elections and undermining American democracy. While the Senate vote was a victory for Republicans, it was a defeat for American democracy. The Koch brothers and other billionaires should not be allowed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars electing candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful. The fight to overturn Citizens United must continue at the grassroots level in every state in this country.”
Earlier this week when Republicans voted with Democrats to allow debate on the constitutional amendment to move forward, it was a sign that associating with the Koch brothers had become toxic. Senate Republicans tried to fool the voters back home by supporting moving forward on the amendment, but everyone knew that when the time came for final passage, Senate Republicans would bow to their Koch masters.
Before the vote, the Senate’s top Koch whore, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “Given the urgency of this situation, I have to say it’s a little disconcerting to see the Democrat-led Senate focusing on things like reducing free speech protections for the American people. At a time when the rest of the country is worried about the threat of ISIL. At a time when millions wonder how they’re ever going to find a job in this awful economy. At a time when we find out that crushing federal regulations have gotten so out of control that they now cost our economy more than $2 trillion a year. This is what they chose to make their top legislative priority this week. Taking an eraser to the First Amendment.”
To Republicans, not allowing the Koch brothers to buy the government is a limiting of free speech for every American.
After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blasted the Republicans, “Senate Democrats want a government that works for all Americans – not just the richest few. Today Senate Republicans clearly showed that they would rather sideline hard-working families in order to protect the Koch brothers and other radical interests that are working to fix our elections and buy our democracy.”
As Sen. Sanders said, the battle to overturn Citizens United will be a long-term grassroots fight. The point of the Senate debate this week wasn’t to pass the bill because everyone already knew that wasn’t going to happen. The point was to bring the issue front and center. It is important that the American people get educated about what the Koch brothers and other right-wing billionaires are trying to do.
The Koch brothers won’t be defeated in the Congress or the current Supreme Court. Victory will come state by state as individuals stand up and demand their government back. Today may have been a defeat for democracy, but it was another step forward in the battle to be won.
House Republicans STILL Have No Strategy To Avoid a Government Shutdown
By: Jason Easley
Thursday, September, 11th, 2014, 8:43 pm
John Boehner continues to say that House Republicans will pass a CR that avoids a government shutdown, but behind close doors Republicans still don’t have a strategy to avoid another shutdown.
Roll Call reported,
Another obstacle for the House Republican leadership team — which has a brand new configuration after the resignation of ex-Majority Leader Eric Cantor — is coming up with a legislative response that actually has the votes to pass, and preferably without too much help from the Democrats. The House was meant to vote on a CR on Thursday, but with Obama’s eleventh hour request for ISIS language, the GOP pulled the measure to re-evaluate options.
Whether adding the Syrian rebel language in the CR would make it harder to pass is still a question with no easy answer. ….
“Let’s just see what [Republicans] propose, we have no idea what they’ll propose,” said Ways and Means ranking member Sander M. Levin, D-Mich., on Thursday. “We don’t know what’s in the CR … Republicans just don’t seem to make clear what they want to do.”
House Republicans have left themselves four legislative days to pass a CR, and nobody knows what the bill is going to look like.
John Boehner and Harry Reid had agreed to a short-term CR in August, but now that is up in the air, “The stop-gap spending bill that Reid and Boehner had quietly agreed to over the August break would need to be revised to include the new measure and skeptical rank-and-file lawmakers would need to be wooed and whipped, adding new drama to what many in Washington expected would be a sleepy September session.
President Obama wants the authorization for training the Syrian rebels included in the CR, but House Republicans are already expressing reservations that are about voting for anything that the president asks for so close to an election. The fact that Republicans have no strategy isn’t surprising. This is a House majority that has been guided by the whims of the tea party for years.
Another government shutdown would be a disaster for the Republicans. It is possible that they get their act together, but with outside groups like Heritage Action calling for the government to be shutdown, House Republicans could be on the verge of an act of political suicide.
Speaker Boehner criticizes President Obama, but the Republicans don’t even have a plan to avoid another government shutdown.
House Republicans Conspire With War Criminal Dick Cheney to Plot Iraq Strategy
Wednesday, September, 10th, 2014, 10:02 am
It is a fairly easy task to point out the preponderance of negative traits that characterize Republicans and their various conservative brethren, and one in particular is that if nothing else, they are consistent. Obviously, acting, behaving, or reacting the same way can be an admirable character trait worth cultivating, but it can also be detrimental if a person or group consistently acts in a manner that repeats prior mistakes. In that regard, Republicans are without peer and epitomize what Albert Einstein said was the definition of insanity; “repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different outcome.” No American can say with a straight face that Republicans do not dependably promote repeating their failed policies regardless of the damage to the nation whether it is pushing the failed trickle down economic theory, giving corporations a means of avoiding paying taxes, or finding a reason to go to war.
It was hardly surprising, then, that just hours prior to President Obama’s meeting with the four top congressional leaders to brief them on the Administration’s strategy to confront the growing threat from the Islamic State (IS), House Republicans met with war criminal Dick Cheney for counsel on dealing with IS, and likely to promote a new Iraq war.
The President briefed Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the “strategy for degrading and ultimately destroying” the terrorist group. By all accounts, the President’s meeting with congressional leadership was productive; likely because, as White House spokesman Josh Earnst said, the President believed “in robust congressional consultation” when it comes to military action. He noted that rank-and-file lawmakers will have access to more information this week during a series of closed briefings planned on Capitol Hill, and that the President “understands that Congress has and should have a role as these important decisions are being made. And the president would certainly welcome support from members of Congress, however they choose to show it, for the steps that we’re taking.”
According to an aide to Boehner, “the speaker would support the president if he chose to deploy the military to help train and play an advisory role and assist with lethal targeting of Islamic State leadership.” However, it is likely that Boehner will have to clear it with Cheney before he fully commits to supporting the President because Cheney wasted little time criticizing the President for creating and expanding the Islamic State. In a closed-door meeting with the House majority, Cheney said the President’s “failed policies in the Middle East facilitated the Islamic State’s expansion” as well as fueled every other crisis in the region and around the world. Cheney openly expressed doubt the President would lay out the “right” strategy that was capable of defeating the Islamic State and other enemies around the world when he addresses the nation tonight.
Cheney was supposed to advise House Republicans on politics, but he decided the Islamic State situation warranted his attention because he still wants America’s military heavily involved in Iraq and warned Republicans to abandon any idea of isolationism. After the meeting with the Iraq debacle mastermind, Republicans said Cheney’s message was that a lighter American military footprint around the globe is what created the Islamic State, and demanded that Republicans “re-affirm the support for strong military, intelligence gathering, and an internationalist approach to foreign affairs.” Translation; military intervention any and every place or as Cheney implied, a heavy American footprint around the world.
One Republican from Illinois, Adam Kinzinger, praised Cheney and gushed that he “reiterated for us the importance of the Republican Party standing strong for a strong national defense. It was a great message, something we needed to hear. Hopefully it sticks with a lot of my colleagues who have kind of had this creep toward isolationism in the Congress lately.” Cheney’s counsel apparently put Republicans in a sober mood after informing them that The Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood are a major threat to America because “our allies in the region don’t trust the President.” Although sources claimed Cheney did not recommend specific military action, “he did kind of lay out the dangers we have and that we need to meet them. Cheney also said “how unprepared the U.S. military is for any kind of large-scale engagement against ISIS because the administration is cutting the military so much.”
There are cuts in military spending that Chuck Hagel announced in February affecting forces and weapons programs, but they are a direct result of Republican’s harsh budget pressure. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said in February that “As we end our combat mission in Afghanistan, this will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition the Defense Department is making after 13 years of war.” It is noteworthy that a primary reason there are budgetary issues stemming from the national debt is because Cheney and Bush engaged America in a needless and unfunded trillions-of-dollars war of aggression in Iraq. A war, by the way, that created the Islamic State. There was no Islamic State until America invaded Iraq and allowed a Shia-led government to chase disenfranchised Sunnis into Syria where they joined forces with Islamic extremists and destabilized Syria and began their march to reclaim Iraq as the dreaded Islamic State.
President Obama should not allow Republicans to have any say in dealing with a crisis their hero Cheney was crucial in creating; particularly after he met with House GOP members to promote more American military involvement in the region and around the world that will produce another recruitment tool for groups supporting the Islamic State. It was, after all, Republicans who railed on the President for not arming and aiding the Islamic State in the drive to overthrow Syrian President Assad.
Perpetual warmonger, Senator John McCain even made a secret trip to meet with Islamic State leaders that Republicans had referred to as freedom fighters just last year. Or, as John Fugelsgang noted, “a year ago some Republican pols were comparing ISIS to the found fathers” in their push to promote American military aid in the civil war to oust Assad. Now the warmongers want to wage war on the “Islamic founding fathers,” not so much for the threat they pose, but because it is important for, as Cheney counsels, America to have a “heavy footprint” in Iraq.
To an outsider it may seem shocking that Republicans would meet with, much less give their rapt attention to, one of the main architects of the unnecessary and disastrous Iraq war that sent the national debt into the stratosphere and created the need for budget reductions across the board; including defense cuts. However, to Americans with an ounce of awareness it was inevitable that they would take advice and counsel from the man who played a major role in the creation of the Islamic State in the first place. There is an aphorism in the Christian bible’s book of Proverbs that states “As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly,” and by meeting with Cheney for a pep talk to re-engage the military in Iraq, Republicans appear ready to repeating Cheney’s folly and return America back to Bush and Cheney’s vomit that created the threat President Obama now has to confront.