Why The U.S. Navy Moved Aircraft Carrier Out of The Persian Gulf

The Lyft driver who brought me home from the city one night last week had served in the Persian Gulf three times while in the U.S. Navy. We had plenty to talk about for 25 minutes. He told me that the reason we moved the USS Theodore Roosevelt out of the Gulf recently was because of the Russians firing cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea into Syria. He said the U.S. had been caught off guard by the range of those missiles, so the aircraft carriers had to be moved out of their range.

Rubbish, I said. Putin would not send a cruise missile to attack an American aircraft carrier. There are missiles in every country in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea and so forth, and none would fire away at an aircraft carrier of the strongest navy on the planet.

He asked me to recall the reports that a few of the Russian cruise missiles supposedly failed, fell into Iran. Yes, I heard and read about it, and also read the denials. I saw a couple photos of holes in the ground that looked like they'd been dug by a couple kids playing with shovels. I didn't see remnants of crashed missiles, not one shard. I don't know the truth, but I'm sceptical of Pentagon leaks and claims about it, and anything that comes out of the mouth of Andrea Mitchell or anybody she gives the okay for an appearance on MSNBC to talk about anything relating to the Middle East.

Lyft driver then suggested that the U.S.N., in an abundance of caution, moved the carrier out of the Gulf in case a wayward Russian cruise missile accidentally falls out of the sky right onto the flight deck and kaboom.

I guess he forgot that the U.S. military would shoot that errant bugger down before it got close, but my ride was over at that point and so was out chat.

Then today I read in The New Khalij that a former Lebanese minister and head of a political party -- a man who must have been sleeping for the past few years -- said that Doha would be bombarded with rockets if it joined with the Saudis and Turks, intervening in Syria militarily in support of the terrorists of Ahrar Ash-Sham and other head choppers.

Now there is a reason to move a U.S. aircraft carrier out of the waters of the Persian Gulf. We must watch out for errant Lebanese missiles on their way to Doha.

Al Sauds Don't Drain the Swamp, They Drain The People's Money

It's been reported widely this week that the IMF warned Saudi Arabia may run extremely low in financial assets in five years unless they sharply reduce their spending. It's also widely suggested that the funds being depleted so fast are due to low oil prices (nevermind the Saudis wanted them low and have kept them low for multiple reasons) and to costs related to regional wars.

Why isn't the reporting more accurate? Why can't the Independent or the Guardian or the lousy New York Times or the Washington Post reporters include just a couple more salient facts and less euphemism? "Regional wars?" Why not say the Saudis are spending massive funds in support of terrorists and terrorism in Syria and Iraq? Why not say that the Saudis spent billions to overthrow the democratically elected president of Egypt and keep that sissie in power? Why not say the Saudis are spending massive funds bombing the poorest nation in the Middle East to smithereens, hiring soldiers from other countries to do what they cannot do themselves on the ground, committing war crimes, patrolling the sea to stop enough food, water and medicine for the millions of people affected by the Young Hothead General's need to prove his manhood?

Why not say that the Al Saud family are the biggest thieves on earth, that their greed and corruption appears to know no bounds? Daily there are reports of the massive theft of public money and plots on how to get more of it at the highest levels of the Saudi dynasty. The 12 to 16 billion dollar Lockheed Martin deal announced this week? How many of those billions is baksheesh? How much is the share of Mohammad bin Salman in that baksheesh?

Even some reporters whose work I respect get a fail, and the royal lovers at SUSRIS get the cake.

What A Difference A Day Makes

I had to laugh tonight hearing Rachel Maddow state that reporters should check on the claims made by their sources. Pretty hard to check on the Pentagon when you're amongst their stenographers.