Europe has manufactured an artificial "Russian enemy"
in order to create an artificial "European identity" Guy Mettan
Demonization of Putin is integral part of policy of the US and British elite toward Russia, designed
to weaken, and, if possible, dismember the Russian state. It is also an instrument of increasing national
unity by creating a demonized external enemy.
Russophobia of the US elite should be understood in the context of
Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism as Russia represent
an obstacle for complete domination of the globe by the US neoliberal empire. Nothing personal here,
just business. Recent statements by Putin
made at Valday club in Sochi (October 24, 2014) also do not produce any love to Putin from the global
and first of all the USA neoliberal elite as well as London-based financial oligarchy. Not accidentally
for both the US and GB elite Putin is a "Great Satan".
In colloquial usage, the term demonization is used metaphorically to refer to
propagandadirected on delitimization
of particular individual or group.
Delegitimization is the psychological process which undermines or marginalizes an individual or
entity by presenting value judgments as facts which are construed to devalue legitimacy. The ultimate
goal of justifying harm or war.
The concept applies to a wide spectrum of social contexts but generally means categorization of
individual or groups into extreme social categories which are ultimately excluded from society.
Delegitimization provides the moral and the discursive basis to harm the delegitimized group, even
in the most inhumane ways.
It is related to stereotyping in a sense that it leads to prejudice when people emotionally react
to the name of the person, ascribe evil intention and characteristic to the person or group without
evaluating objective evidence.
A major topic in the Russian media is mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.
Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand
how there can be such a disconnect with Western impressions.
Recently, leading Russian commentators
and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign to
defame Putin, by governments or other groups.
>The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin,
made similar remarks, telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia."
The logic, they argue, is that by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically
by undermining popular support for him, and internationally, by rallying popular opinion to support
policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself. They
also talk about regime change.
They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination
which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result
of a dedicated effort to introduce this defamation into the news flow.
Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years
The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with
revelations that the CIA and German Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence
how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news, including direct cash payments.
Here are some examples they point to:
Portraying him as a scheming dictator trying to rebuild a repressive empire.
Claiming he personally ordered the murder of a number of journalists, and personally ordered
a KGB defector to be murdered with radiation poisoning.
Frequently citing unsubstantiated rumors he is having an affair with a famous gymnast.
Allegations that he has stashed away billions for his personal benefit, without providing
Recent article in newsweek claiming he leads a luxurious and lazy lifestyle, sleeping late.
Recent article in NYT focusing on a supposed personal arrogance.
Hillary Clinton mentioning in speech after speech that he is a bad guy, a bully, that one
must confront him forcefully.
Mis-quoting him on his regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Articles about a supposed super-luxury villa built for him in southern Russia.
The over-the top headlines in the western media (they were worst of all in Germany) portraying
him personally responsible for murdering the victims of MH17.
And soft stuff - magazine covers making him look sinister, monstrous, etc.
RI sat down with
The Saker, a leading analyst of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:
So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia,
although not a shooting war, for now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit
Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that fail, at the very least "regime weakening"
and "Russia weakening".
And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...
So this is a US government program?
Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:
1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin
had been totally lost ů Russia then was a US colony like Ukraine is today ů and,
2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.
ů a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which
has to be crushed. ů this is a full-scale political assault on Russia and Putin personally.
So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the
global media are partly the result of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, ů basically,
It seems like ôOperation Mockingbirdö all over againů Are you aware of other instances
aimed at Putin?
(Editors Note: Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s
to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the
late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation,
forcing the programĺs termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under
Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public ů Putin's
popularity is higher than ever before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin
is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs who are making deals with Ukrainian
oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistanceů
ů So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people
who still oppose an overt military interventionů
ů but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is
successful - which is less likely but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given
the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.
Warm and fuzzy...
So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver
a serious blow to the East Ukrainians, the US can use this as a method to strike at Putinĺs support
Yes, thatĺs right ... there are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject
any negotiated solution and who will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful
idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine Putin.
Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest
in doing this?
Yes, well here is something that most people in the west donĺt appreciateů there is a major behind-the
scenes struggle among Russian elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically,
those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" (those whom Putin refers
to as the "5th column).
The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives,
reformers and reactionaries, right?
Well its sort of like that, but not exactlyů
The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia,
Latin America and the rest of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North
Atlantic" power configuration.
The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base
is his immense popular support - but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while
supporting anti-Putin campaigns.
Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on
in other countries, in the US?
I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate
media is such that it makes journalists corrupt.
As the French philosopher Alain Soral says "nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a
prostitute". There are, of course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.
This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a
more subtle way - by making it clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly
rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning away those who don't.
If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and
soon out of work.
There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very
Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, ůsimilar specific operational programs
in France, the UK, Italy, Latin America, etc.
Yes, one has to assume so ľ it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them
As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody
who in the past used to read the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more
honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or EU today.
Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern
If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing
it against western leaders?
I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique
it a combination of truly phenomenal arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.
The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on
the planet. Most governments can only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent
or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have the resources to mount an international
strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.
So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?
Quotes from Putin speech and answers to the questions at the meeting of the Valdai International
öThe world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we
have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the
current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. The
international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also
going through difficult times.ô
öThe Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and
transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This
created the impression that the so-called Ĺvictorsĺ in the Cold War had decided to pressure
events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests.ô
öIn a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites
rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own
universal recipes. This groupĺs ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the
policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international
community. But this is not the case.ô
öA unilateral diktat and imposing oneĺs own models produces the opposite result. Instead
of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see
the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public
ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.ô
öToday, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put
together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the
image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this
leadership, or diktat if you wish.ô
öSanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the
principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of
globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which is a model that has primarily
benefited precisely the Western countries.ô
öYou cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always
thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm
öRussia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic
environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more
decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past
occasions, will only consolidate our society.ô
öWe have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed
development road. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic
and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business
communities in the leading countries.ô
öRussia is supposedly turning its back on Europe Ś such words were probably spoken already
here too during the discussions Ś and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia.
Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region
began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been
following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we
saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy.ô
öThere is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare
and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact
on international relations, including because this Ĺsoft powerĺ resource will depend to a great
extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda
öWe are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual
guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging
in direct conflict.ô
öIn absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point
of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council
sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately
declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.ô
öIt is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in
international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and
set the example of positive and responsible leadership.ô
öInternational relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on
moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for oneĺs
partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically
change the global situation.ô
öThe work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built
on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Unionĺs formation process is a good example
of such transparency.ô
öRussia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open
economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive
modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.ô
öRussia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world. While respecting
the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for
our position to be respected.ô
öBuilding a more stable world order is a difficult task.We were able to develop rules
for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki
in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage
Washington's political infighting has blocked President Trump's plans for a new
dÚtente with Russia but also has left the global playing field open for Russian ľ and
Chinese ľ advances in expanding their influence, explains Gilbert Doctorow.
By Gilbert Doctorow
As Democrats and the mainstream U.S. media focus intensely on still unproven
charges of Russian election meddling to explain Hillary Clinton's surprising defeat,
the furor has forced an embattled President Trump to retreat from his plans to
cooperate with Russia on fighting terrorism and other global challenges.
Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10,
2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)
Amid the anti-Russian hysteria, Trump's Cabinet members and United Nations
ambassador have gone out of their way to reiterate the tough policy positions of the
Obama administration with respect to Russia, underlining that nothing has changed.
For its part, Congress has plunged into McCarthyistic hearings aimed at Trump
supporters who may have met with Russians before the 2016 elections.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has duly noted these developments in Washington. In Moscow,
the breakthrough in relations that some had hoped for is now dismissed as improbable.
On the other hand, while the United States is tearing itself apart in partisan
fighting, Russia is getting a much-needed breather from the constant ratcheting up of
pressure from the West that it experienced over the past three years.
We hear from Russian elites more and more how they plan to proceed on the
international stage in the new circumstances. The byword is self-reliance and pursuit
of the regional and global policies that have been forming over the past couple of
years as the confrontation with the United States escalated.
These policies have nothing to do with some attack on the Baltic States or Poland,
the nightmare scenarios pushed by neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in
the U.S. and the European Union. The Russian plans also have nothing to do with
subversion of elections in France or Germany, the other part of the fevered
imaginations of the West.
Instead, the Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that
together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the
Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War
system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources.
In other words, the Russians are envisioning a future world order whose contours
harken back to the Nineteenth Century. In terms of details, the Russians are now
inseparably wed to China for reasons of mutual economic and security interest on the
global stage. The same is becoming true of their relationship with Iran at the
regional level of the Greater Middle East.
The Russian elites also take pride in the emerging military, economic and
geopolitical relationships with countries as far removed as Libya, Egypt, Turkey,
Pakistan and Thailand. News about breakthroughs with each of these countries is
heralded on daily television programming.
Russian elites note that the United States has misunderstood Moscow's position in
Syria from the start of the war there. Russia's priority was never to keep the Assad
regime in power, but rather to maintain a foothold in the Middle East. Put narrowly,
Russia was determined to maintain its naval base at Tarsus, which is important to
support Russia's presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. More broadly, Moscow's goal
was to restore Russian influence in the strategic region where Russia once was a
significant player before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
In May 2016, Russian marchers honoring family members who fought in World War II.
(Photo from RT)
Russia's loss of Eastern Europe is also not forgotten, though American hegemony
there is acknowledged as a reality of the present. But nothing lasts forever, and the
Russians expect to be back as a major force in the region, not by military conquest,
but by virtue of economic and strategic logic, which favors them in the long term.
Though many East European elites have been bought off by the United States and the
European Union, many common citizens have been major losers from the American led
post-Cold War order, suffering from de-industrialization and large-scale emigration
to more developed E.U. countries, reaching as much as 25 percent of the general
population in some places. These Eastern European countries have little to offer
Western Europe except for tourist destinations, whereas their shared potential for
trade with Russia is immense.
This past weekend, Russian television news carried images of demonstrations in
Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova that you did not see on Euronews. The object of
this popular wrath was billionaire financial speculator George Soros and his "Open
Society" affiliates. Russian news commentary explained that these demonstrations -
operating under the banner of "Go Home Soros" - became possible now because the Trump
administration has dropped U.S. support for him.
It would be na´ve not to see some official Russian assistance to these coordinated
demonstrations across a large swath of Eastern Europe, but the Russians were simply
giving the United States a taste of its own medicine, since U.S.-sponsored
"non-governmental organizations" have been busy subverting legitimate Euro-skeptic
governments in these countries in cooperation with Soros's NGOs.
Not Your Grandfather's Cold War
But there are key differences between what is happening now and in the Cold War
days. The original Cold War was characterized not only by military and geopolitical
rivalry of the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It also was an
ideological rivalry between ľ on one side ľ free market capitalism and parliamentary
democracy and ľ on the other ľ planned economies and monolithic top-down Communist
President Richard Nixon with his then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in
Starting with President Richard Nixon, a policy of dÚtente was put in place, which
embodied the principle of co-existence of these competing principles of organizing
human society for the sake of world peace. There are those who maintain we have no
New Cold War today because the ideological dimension is lacking, although there are
obvious differences over principles between the socially liberal U.S./E.U. and the
more socially conservative Russia. But those differences hardly constitute a
full-blown ideological conflict.
The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global
governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because
there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include:
globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus
interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of
liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of
forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism. The West generally
has favored the first of these options while Russia and China lead a bloc of nations
generally favoring the second options.
On the campaign trail and in his Inaugural speech, Donald Trump spoke in Realist
terms suggesting that the U.S. would abandon its Idealist ideology of the preceding
25 years, which involved coercive "regime change" strategies to impose Western
political values and economic systems around the world. Instead, Trump suggested that
he would do business with Russia and with the world at large without imposing U.S.
solutions, essentially accepting the principles that the Russians have been promoting
ever since they began their public pushback to the United States in 2007.
However, given Trump's retreat on foreign policy in recent weeks ľ while under
fierce attack from Washington power centers asserting possible collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia ľ we may be left with something akin to the re-set that
Obama introduced at the start of his rule in 2009 which never went as far as
dÚtente/co-existence. It was limited to cooperation in isolated areas where U.S. and
Russian interests were deemed to coincide.
The only difference we might see from the embattled Trump administration is less
of a penchant for "regime change" operations and a resumption of some bilateral
contacts with Russia that were cut off when Obama decided to penalize Russia for its
intervention in Crimea and the Donbass in 2014.
Assuming that Washington's neocon Republicans and hawkish Democrats don't push
Trump into a desperate political corner, he might at least engage Moscow with a more
polite and diplomatic tone. That might be better than some of the alternatives, but
it is surely not an onset of a new collaborative Golden Age.
The scaling back in expectations of how far the Trump administration will go in
improving relations with Russia makes sense because of another reality that has
become clear now that his team of advisers and implementers is filling out, namely
that there is no one in his "kitchen cabinet" or in his administration who can guide
the neophyte president as he tries to negotiate a new global order and to do a "big
deal" with Vladimir Putin, such as Trump may have hoped to strike.
Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner lacks the experience and depth to be a
world-class strategic thinker. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corporate
skills from his years at Exxon-Mobil but also lacks a strategic vision. Many other
key jobs have gone to military generals who may be competent administrators but have
limited political or diplomatic experience. There was talk of guidance coming from
Henry Kissinger, but he has not been seen or heard from recently, and it is doubtful
that at his advanced age and frailty he could provide consistent counsel.
As Trump struggles to survive the cumulative attacks on his fledgling
administration, he is also distracted from the reality of a rapidly changing world.
If and when he does get to concentrate on the geopolitical situation, he may well
have to play catch up with Russia and China as they make deals with other regional
players and fill the vacuum left by the ongoing American political disorder.
Assuming Trump can bring on board talented advisers with strategic depth, it would
still take enormous vision and diplomatic skills to strike a "big deal" that could
begin to end the violent chaos that has swept across much of the world since 2001. If
and when that becomes possible, such a deal might look like a "Yalta-2" with a
triangular shape involving the U.S., Russia and China.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book,
Does Russia Have a Future?
was published in August 2015.
March 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm
Stuff your silly divide and rule. How about live and let live? I
presume this is what you do in your private life. I dont feel any
threat at all from Russia, Iran or China despite the Chicken Little
crap from our media and bought and paid for pollies on a daily
basis. So let's all chill out and tell our pollies to shut ..f..k
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Your words reminded me of what I learned about Hitler. In Europe,
all my teachers of history in primary and secondary school
emphasised that if Hitler was smart enough to attack one country at
a time, he would have won the WW2. For example, when he attacked
Poland and Britain declared war on Germany, he should have tried to
finish off Britain instead of trying to win it over whilst
attacking Soviet Union.
Perhaps the US/Israeli leadership suffers
from the same type of hubris, believing that it can globalize the
World by conquering both Russia and China. Of course, the
US/Israeli MIC believes that the bigger the enemy the higher the
March 23, 2017 at 1:35 am
KIza my hunch is the American Israeli MIC is blinded by money,
and what they consider success. Here could have been the moment
for America to truly be the that shinning city upon the hill,
but instead we took the advice of the Project for a New American
21st Century, a project so evil it surpasses the stupidity of Dr
Strangelove and here we are. If the money could see a profit in
humanitarian needs, wow wouldn't that be lovely.
My grandmother always told me the bigger they are, the harder
they fall, and America better watch out now it's gonna get it's
ass kicked good if it doesn't wise up. I love my country, and
that remark I just made isn't a reflection on our uniformed
military, but these genius in DC fighting each other, and laying
down some really made stuff on Russia, isn't good, and it ain't
going to amount to much more than pain in the end. The whole
idea of this 21st century America is nothing but a plan to
This fricking media we have isn't going to stop until Trump
gets impeached, or we really do something stupid to Russia. The
sense of all of this in my eyes always leads back to that
Project for the new American Century piece of crap. America had
it all to win over the love of the world, why with just the
rhetoric and spirit it was enough to try and strive for, but now
ah not so much. It's not too late, but I don't at this moment in
time see what good is on the horizon in the meantime I'm going
to just try and appreciate whatever it is there is to appreciate
take care Joe
March 23, 2017 at 3:35 am
I agree Joe, as a project of its Dual Citizens PNAC is the
root of most evil in US. It is not a true American project.
It is a project for global domination of Israel using US, its
people and its resources, as means to an end. Who needs to
discuss the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
when PNAC is available in plain sight. I am just surprised
how few US people understand this. Thanks for your great
comment as usual.
Bob Van Noy
March 22, 2017 at 10:55 am
"Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian
countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is
important to understand that the Russian vision is a future
multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two
superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited
resources." Gilbert Doctorow
Again. "The real area of contention is
in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this
level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there
is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which
include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign
policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order
established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other
forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect
for local differences; idealism versus realism." Gilbert Doctorow
To me the choice, were we ever given a choice as voters, would
clearly be: 1) A future multi-polar world and, 2) a balance of forces
and respect for local differences. The choice doesn't seem so very
controversial? However, the default position of the Neocons and the
liberal interventionists has always been to double down rather than
negotiate, so I expect more saber rattling aggression
Jimmy Carter stated USA is no longer a democracy, true. Idealism is
the opposite of true USA motives, pure machivellian greed.
March 22, 2017 at 3:34 pm
Brad Owen ľ that's the way I see it too. I don't think that Trump
needs Bannon or his son-in-law to be strategic. Strategic thinking
(one-upping your opponent, outsmarting him, taking what's not
yours, outright lying, propaganda, coups, trying to control the
whole world) has been the policy for too long. I think Trump has a
particular vision, and he's, as you say, playing rope-a-dope with
the "strategic" thinkers.
I see Trump as wanting to create free
(but FAIR) trade. I see him wanting to stay out of other countries'
business, concentrating on the home base, which has been sorely
neglected for the last 20 ľ 30 years.
I think people totally underestimate Trump.
This is really a war between those who favor
globalism/internationalism thinking (open borders, absence of a
nation state or culture, multinational corporations controlling the
world, one-world order) and those who favor nation states, culture,
borders, fair and open trade with other countries.
Trump is not a professional politician. He is not a great
orator, slick or polished. But I believe he loves his country more
than the other bought-and-paid-for politicians who govern according
to who is paying them the most money on any given day.
I think that the way Trump looks at business is if his
competitor gets a property on one block, he gets one on the next.
Everybody is happy. He doesn't set out to ensure that his
competitor is crushed. He doesn't lie about him, try to get others
to sanction him, try to bar him from doing business.
March 22, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Hi Brad, nice comment, I think you will like this article in
case you missed it
And just to add to your comment, Russia and USA are working very
close in Syria. Not directly of course, but Syrian army and the
Kurds (who are heavily supported by USA from air) are making
great progress in the Norther part of Syria. In fact they even
cooperated to block further advances of the Turks (NATO member
btw). So I think that the RU-USA relationship is better than the
media is trying to show us
March 23, 2017 at 5:21 am
I agree,Arseniy. We are two of the three Nations (China being
the third Nation) PRIMARILY responsible for securing the
peace and guiding development for the entire World we three.
This was Roosevelt's vision,ejected by the Anglophile
intelligence community the moment he died; recovered
fortunately, by our mutual ally China, in the BRI policy.
Russia and USA will be the Gateway managers of the World
LandBridge (tunnel, spanning Bering Straits with mag-lev rail
lines, pipelines, power lines, communication lines) that ties
the whole World together. This was thought of in Lincoln's
time a way to bypass the powerful British and other European
maritime Empires. Russia had the foresight to sell us Alaska
towards this end. Russia ALWAYS supported our stand AGAINST
European Empires (especially the British Empire), even in the
Soviet days. Together with our friend China, AND the rest of
the World's Nations we'll continue to progress and grow and
move out, into the Solar System to industrialize the moon and
Mars and other moons and planets, after we put away these
childish, pointless, sinful, wars. Read Executive
Intelligence Review website, where these ideas are
championed. Remember Krafft Erikhe (spelling?) whose vision
of Man the Solar Species inspired our early space program.
Our next, centuries-long Era will be our inhabiting of our
Solar System, after war has been abolished as obsolete and
March 22, 2017 at 12:23 pm
It is a sad day when detente and cooperation is replaced with
demonization and belligerence to boot. When will our American
leadership finally come to grips that this world isn't flat? Is
liberating a nation for the sake of our installing an American fast
food chain worth the price of so many innocent lives who get
displaced, or worst yet killed by American bombs the price people must
pay to join the NWO? Does anyone believe that by doing these things we
are making any real and sincere new friends can you say blowback?
All this fuss over Putin and Russian interference is putting President
Trump in a difficult box. Why even Putin critic Masha Gessen is
Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, and if we include
journalist well then Masha Gessen for at least on this Russia-Gate
story is making charges similar to those of us who see this witch
hunt for what it really is. Now don't blast me for posting a link
to Gessen's article but since others are quoting her I thought you
may wish to read her own words.
If America can pull through these tough and difficult times all
in one piece, and regain some sense of sanity and fairness of
values, this moment in time will be shelved along side the McCarthy
era of the lowest of times in America.
March 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm
I would not be as generous to Masha Gessen as you are Joe. Ms
Gessen is very anti-Russian and anti-Putin, but she recognises
the damage the current DNC policy against her two pet-hates
does. After all the US high-tempereture emotional madness blows
out, Russia will end up standing even taller because the US
Democrats were crying wolf. I have been highlighting this same
point for a while now ľ the Democrats are really working to
benefit Russia, they are the really traitorous fifth column they
accuse Trump of. This is why Ms Gessen is distancing herself
from the mindless bunch.
March 22, 2017 at 11:46 pm
KIza please don't read my posting Gessen's article as an
endorsement. I only posted it due to the fact that sites like
libertblitzkreig and Leftist Paul Street on counterpunch
talked about Gessen's concerns. You know how I've mentioned
in many of my comments how I think Vladimir Putin is the only
adult in the room when it comes to our world's future. I'm
all for distributed power, and I am no fan, and never was of
You are on too something though, when you mention to how
Masha is no doubt distancing herself away from the awaiting
disaster the Democrate's are leading us into. This whole
fiasco is troubling when you think of how Hillary's conniving
has brought us all to this place. It would be great if
Hillary were brought to justice, but then again so much for
I'll leave you with this, keep your friends close and your
"... Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA. The massive, long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center. As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money". ..."
March 23, 2017 at 1:04 pm
Good historyľwonder why Rachel The Mouth Maddow never did it in her time wasting opening segments
where she repeats herself over and over to numb our minds and spend her time when she could be saying
something insightful. Maybe that's why. PS. Why does she never invite Robert Parry on to comment?
Oh. I see.
March 23, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Because she's paid $7 million per year to talk about some things, and not others.
"Jill Stein and Russia" and the results will illuminate the Democratic Party Echo Chamber
March 23, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Maddow has proven herself an indisputable part of "the establishment media going whole-hog
on these vague suspicions". That is, she is carrying tubs of water for her Deep State masters.
Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can
easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and
Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA. The massive,
long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center.
As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money".
"... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
"... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
"... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
"... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
"... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
"... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
"... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
"... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws ľ nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
"... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
"... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
"... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate
unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he
makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.
The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff.
There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major
sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute
bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated
the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors
of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for
his own hanging.
Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am
Great post Anna.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am
Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan.
US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies
to the Afghan Taliban".
It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official
gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say
"the dog ate my homework".
Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously
all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.
In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :
"The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass
rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate ľ Sinclair's
fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:
"was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering.
The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him ľ and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced
the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for
his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much
speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen
ľ he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird
of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and
both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."
In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even
heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the
early 20th century.
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm
The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties)
are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that
69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've
been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's
article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled
by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual
in my experience of watching Washington.
Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney
in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":
From that article:
"For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence
and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The
Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail
that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into
a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter
of global commerce and industry."
Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the
level of unity they will accept.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm
I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being
labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten
"donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama
got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they
are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist
traitors. They are Ziocrats.
J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy
in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that
Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.
Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire
policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the
Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.
US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to
maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over
Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special
relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that
their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic
self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs
of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease
UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother
Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her
out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe
will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of
the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide
& conquer is over, finished.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist
Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging
mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa
during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western
They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via
The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.
Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also.
Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.
rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm
All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection
is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early,
although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was
fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there
was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign
for the UN pressure.
No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control
US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it
or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.
Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am
Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and
a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional
enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct
from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering
under the same yoke of Empire as are we).
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists.
Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are
The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million
Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist
propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial
I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control.
US mass media.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm
To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60
percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less
than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by
No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The
DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.
No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to
the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got
no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm
In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website
that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored
amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium
News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism
and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians
from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites
in the US against African-Americans.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking.
There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying,
in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding.
I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama
in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and
Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that
"the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.
Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals.
PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II,
as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices
to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.
"The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a
dangerous illusion that needs debunking."
Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs
debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating
procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws ľ nothing new, so therefore
presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".
Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American
financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?
It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians
fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned
that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being
only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened ľ the titanic
reaction ľ had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion
that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently ľ
that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed
the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request
for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry
facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested
response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve".
Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break ľ then after
the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.
My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be
triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but
another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news
during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders
capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled
goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time
friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers
on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant
located in the top floors of one of the towers ľ because his wife fortunately convinced him to
keep an appointment with his dermatologist.
Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.
Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by
Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available
The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over
$100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."
In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel
lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably
making that library the most expensive ever.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from
US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of
such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides
that could easily obscure the feedback.
You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations
a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps
know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm
In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is
consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the
U.S. Army's director of assassination training.
Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which
was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other
Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"
Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes,
whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."
In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.
Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're
all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger ľ there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons
back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it
goes ľ Israel ľ some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were
ľ he works with those people ľ they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions
for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia,
which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire.
They're ľ you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."
Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.
Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something
on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "
Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."
Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by
Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to
trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because
they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag
wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about
A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death
threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed
and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail
of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep
to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.
backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am
JWalters ľ fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm
That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military
staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They
would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.
Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism
students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.
Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm
A military buildup=an empire in decline.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm
before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.
what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show
and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation
and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans,
that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering
on Goebbels and his total war.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848
Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm
I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing
and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."
Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means
looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative
evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward dÚtente or acceptance
of a multi-polar world are worth considering.
Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still
considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke
screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying
to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.
Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?
For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops
in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's
going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander?
Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness
in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But
this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations
with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.
Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to
be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position.
Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something
approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered
to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other
Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm
What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another
needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War
on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.
LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm
The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination
promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest,
Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have
continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed
has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found
us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry ..
I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional
Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake?
The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,,
the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm
i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the
nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American
holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp
by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis
for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated
with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria.
the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
"[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's
it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either
political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are
being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s)
to benefit private capital.
I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal
economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted
calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and
a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures
We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being
of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons
stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present
system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something
even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."
ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member
needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I
repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm
It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least
a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with
Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion
in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.
Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm
I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.
Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed
from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately
branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably
someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat
the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I
worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their
only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into
a political football.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm
The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the
principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized
via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom
and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am
Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called
intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes
me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will
disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have
become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal
tool of the intellectuals ľ rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .
Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm
They have no decency, sir.
At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.
Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm
"At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."
The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue
to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.
When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention
in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen
future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.
Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.
"... At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom. ..."
Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a "trading places" moment
as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans,
writes Robert Parry.
Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling,
national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive
of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
This "trading places" moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the
House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may
have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.
Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence
of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called "circumstantial evidence of collusion,"
a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version
of Joe McCarthy.
Schiff cited by name a number of Trump's aides and associates who ľ as The New York Times reported
ľ were "believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians." These Americans,
whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump's second
campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump's first national security
adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: "Is it possible
that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy
coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are
not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated."
As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for
several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based
on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.
Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required
multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what
had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North's secret
Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign's undermining of President Carter's Iran-hostage
negotiations in 1980.
For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted
to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories
contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred ľ and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations
By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going
whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have
provided some help or advice to Trump.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room
at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department
Photo] Given the paucity of evidence ľ both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails
and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump's advisers colluded in that
process ľ it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically
and possibly remove him from office.
But those machinations require the Democratic Party's continued demonization of Russia and implicitly
put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the
fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing
elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language
in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions
of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is
officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).
The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the
violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine's ethnic Russian
minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine.
The more complex reality is simply summed up as a "Russian invasion."
Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force
"regime change" on Bashar al-Assad's secular government even if that risks another military confrontation
with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.
In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It's
not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it's just that the Democrats have become all
that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.
Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major
parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military
spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations
(although they were far from pacifists).
Daniel Ellsberg on the cover of Time after leaking the Pentagon Papers
Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions
used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations
for other wars.
Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was
modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing
regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua's Sandinistas and other leftists.
The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s ľ around
Reagan's Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush's attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed
nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as "weak on defense" ľ from George McGovern to Jimmy
Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.
But the Democratic Party's resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George
H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, in which the President
less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war
victory after which Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."
Fearful of being labeled disloyal to "the troops" and "weak," national Democrats scrambled to
show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas
to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.
During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining
harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade
the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda."
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats ľ including presidential
hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton ľ voted to authorize President George W. Bush
to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the
obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads.
The American public's revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to
Barack Obama's election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young
administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama
also became comfortable with continuing Bush's wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing
war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.
By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into
the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against
Sen. Bernie Sanders ľ urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create "no
fly zones" ľ but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump's hopes to reduce hostilities with
Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin's "puppet."
Ironically, Trump's shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party's interest in pushing
for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged
"softness" toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump
or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as
prima facie evidence that he is Putin's "Manchurian candidate."
Being Joe McCarthy
National Democrats and their media supporters don't even seem troubled by the parallels between
their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy's guilt-by-association
hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia ľ no matter how tenuous or disconnected from
Trump's election ľ is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.
Lawyer Roy Cohn (right) with Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
But it's not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound
to the Democrats' political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative
foreign policy would bring in many "moderate" Republicans opposed to Trump's criticism of the Bush-Obama
wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party's nominee.
Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's
new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't
vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were
in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those
investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why
the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.
While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the
Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party's many mistakes and failings, such as:
Why did party leaders push so hard to run an unpopular establishment candidate in a strongly
anti-establishment year? Was it the fact that many are beholden to the Clinton cash machine?
How can Democrats justify the undemocratic use of "super-delegates" to make many rank-and-file
voters feel that the process is rigged in favor of the establishment's choice?
What can the Democratic Party do to reengage with many working-class voters, especially downwardly
mobile whites, to stop the defection of this former Democratic base to Trump's populism?
Do national Democrats understand how out of touch they are with the future as they insist that
the United States must remain the sole military superpower in a uni-polar world when the world is
rapidly shifting toward a multi-polar reality?
Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather
pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community
ľ with its fearsome surveillance powers ľ can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump's impeachment.
Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious
Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John
McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of "regime change" wars.
At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering
parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
print here or as an e-book (from
"... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
"... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the
Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley
tells Dennis J Bernstein.
Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how
Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting
the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around
hatred of Russia.
Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared
the current anti-Russia hysteria to "the
'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early
In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama
ordered a surveillance "tapp" of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained
by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who described how U.S. intelligence apparently
picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.
Dennis Bernstein: A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims
of being surveilled by the previous administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been
going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley. She's a former FBI special
agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the
FBI's pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help
us explain what chairman Nunes reported in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or
... ... ...
CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence
professionals, retired CIA, retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have
asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because it's just been assertions and innuendoes,
We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence
of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would
grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary
Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald
Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would
they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought
she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things,
to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's
just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.
FBI Director James Comey
And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates,
all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie
the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become
the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very
dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we
all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth
about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it.
DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped
using the wrong terminology, these
journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse
the former president of the United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and
information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and the idea of the possibility of Trump
Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally normal
in the context of an investigation.
CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of
the Trump campaign, certain staffers. And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite
rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put them under the microscope
they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever.
It's not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.
So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the
beginning, the Russians own Trump, and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral
process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And, Trump is partially vindicated, because
obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored,
at least in part.
DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation,
but not the Trump investigation?
CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he
was put into the spot because Loretta Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things.
But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac. And so my explanation
was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because
he thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI.
Because at the time Loretta Lynch was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why
he was so public at the time.
And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer,
again, it was not known. It was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act
of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But since this summer what has happened
is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc.
And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence.
And I think that that's the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has
been so much wrong information out there in the media. And no one knows what to believe.
Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not
accurate. And, I think that, again, we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I
do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to have come from political operatives,
and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees,
not Obama, of course, personally.
And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when
all is said and done will be seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous
sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading this. And maybe over time we can get back
to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And I, again,
I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually
using the media to plant false info.
Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy
to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare. Besides,
USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence,
there seemed to be no end in sight. As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)....
I still can't figure this Russiophobia out. We went from a path to mutual arms
reduction and normalizing relations to the shitstorm in Ukraine and Syria. I think
I know who started that whole mess, but I still haven't figured out why other than
maintaining friendly control of European petrochemicals.
We went from Bush II and Vlad fishing and hanging out at the ranch to where we are today. WTF happened?
Same here. This new obsession is complete and utter insanity.
The leftists in
the US remind me of the revolutionaries in Bolshevik Russia. They want a
revolution and dream of communal living.
Communal living is my worst nightmare! Anyone that has shared a house with
roomies soon understands that one person pays the bills while another eats all
the food and one person cleans the toilet while everyone else makes a mess of
the entire place. Communal living sounds great, in theory. In practice? It
Regarding Kirill's post about that shibboleth of contemporary
economics, free trade.
Pick up an introductory textbook of economics and your chances of
finding an objective assessment of a system of this kind are very
low indeed. Instead, what you'll find between the covers is a
ringing endorsement of free trade, usually in the most
propagandistic sort of language. Most likely it will rehash the
arguments originally made by British economist David Ricardo, in the
early 19th century, to prove that free trade inevitably encourages
every nation to develop whatever industries are best suited to its
circumstances, and so produces more prosperity for everybody. Those
arguments will usually be spiced up with whatever more recent
additions appeal to the theoretical tastes of the textbook's author
or authors, and will plop the whole discussion into a historical
narrative that insists that once upon a time, there were silly
people who didn't like free trade, but now we all know better.
What inevitably gets omitted from the textbook is any discussion,
based in actual historical examples, of the way that free trade
works out in practice That would be awkward, because in the real
world, throughout history, free trade pretty consistently hasn't
done what Ricardo's rhetoric and today's economics textbooks claim
it will do. Instead, it amplifies the advantages of wealthy nations
and the disadvantages of poorer ones, concentrating capital and
income in the hands of those who already have plenty of both while
squeezing out potential rivals and forcing down wages across the
board. This is why every nation in history that's ever developed a
significant industrial sector to its economy has done so by
rejecting the ideology of free trade, and building its industries
behind a protective wall of tariffs, trade barriers, and capital
controls, while those nations that have listened to the advice of
the tame economists of the British and American empires have one and
all remained mired in poverty and dependence as long as they did so.
There's a rich irony here, because not much more than a century
ago, a healthy skepticism toward the claims of free trade ideology
used to be standard in the United States. At that time, Britain
filled the role in the world system that the United States fills
today, complete with the global empire, the gargantuan military with
annual budget to match, and the endless drumbeat of brushfire wars
across what would one day be called the Third World, and British
economists were accordingly the world's loudest proponents of free
trade, while the United States filled the role of rising industrial
power that China fills today, complete with sky-high trade barriers
that protected its growing industries, not to mention a distinctly
cavalier attitude toward intellectual property laws.
One result of that latter detail is that pirate editions of the
Encyclopedia Britannica were produced and sold by a number of
American firms all through the 19th century. Most of these editions
differed from their British originals in an interesting way, though.
The entry for "Free Trade" in the original editions repeated
standard British free-trade economic theory, repeating Ricardo's
arguments and dismissing criticisms of free trade out of hand; the
American editors by and large took the trouble to replace these with
entries critiquing free trade ideology in much the same terms I've
used in this post. The replacement of pro- with anti-free trade
arguments in these pirate editions, interestingly enough, attracted
far more denunciation in the British press than the piracy itself
got, which shows that the real issues were tolerably well understood
at the time.
When it comes to free trade and its alternatives, that level of
understanding is nowhere near so common these days, at least in
Britain -I've long suspected that businessmen and officials in
Beijing have a very precise understanding of what free trade
actually means, though it would hardly be to their advantage just
now to talk about that with any degree of candor. In the West even
those who speak most enthusiastically about relocalization and the
end of corporate globalism apparently haven't noticed how
effectively tariffs, trade barriers, and capital controls foster
domestic industries and rebuild national economies-or perhaps it's
just that too many of them aren't willing to consider paying the
kind of prices for their iPods and Xboxes that would follow the
enactment of a reasonable tariff, much less the prices that would be
required if we had the kind of trade barriers that built the
American economy and could build it again, and bluecollar First
World workers were paid First World wages to make them.
Free trade is simply one of the mechanisms of empire in the age
of industrialism, one part of the wealth pump that concentrated the
wealth of the globe in Britain during the years of its imperial
dominion and does the same thing for the benefit of the United
States today. Choose any other mechanism of empire, from the web of
military treaties that lock allies and subject nations into a
condition of dependence on the imperial center, through the immense
benefits that accrue to whatever nation issues the currency in which
international trade is carried out, to the way that the charitable
organizations of the imperial center-missionary churches in
Victoria's time, for example, or humanitarian NGOs in ours-further
the agenda of empire with such weary predictability: in every case,
you'll find a haze of doubletalk surrounding a straightforward
exercise of imperial domination. It requires a keen eye to look past
the rhetoric and pay attention to the direction the benefits flow.
Follow the flow of wealth and you understand empire. That's true
in a general and a more specific sense, and both of these have their
uses. In the general sense, paying attention to shifts in wealth
between the imperial core and the nations subject to it is an
essential antidote to the popular sort of nonsense-popular among
tame intellectuals such as Thomas Friedman, at least, and their
audiences in the imperial core-that imagines empire as a sort of
social welfare program for conquered nations. Whether it's some old
pukka sahib talking about how the British Empire brought railroads
and good government to India, or his neoconservative equivalent
talking about how the United States ought to export the blessings of
democracy and the free market to the Middle East or the former
Soviet Union it's codswallop, and the easiest way to see that it's
codswallop is to notice that the price paid for whatever exports are
under discussion normally amounts to the systematic impoverishment
of the subject nation.
Free trade is only fair if all nations in the agreement start
from the same point. If you choose not to invest in development,
that's your own lookout, but don't complain if you end up under
the de facto control of the one who did. But when a
highly-developed nation espouses a free trade agreement with a
nation that is just starting, it should be fairly easy to
forecast who will come out ahead on the deal.
Did you uhhh write
that yourself? Because it's pretty awesome.
Especially when you
mention that these matters were much more clear to the general
public a century ago, than they are now.
This is what List wrote (National System):
It is a very common clever device that when anyone has
attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by
which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means
of climbing up after him. In this lies the secret of the
cosmopolitical doctrine of Adam Smith, and of the cosmopolitical
tendencies of his great contemporary William Pitt, and of all
his successors in the British Government administrations. Any
nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on
navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation
to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain
free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw
away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations
the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones
that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has
now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.
"... However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary Russophobia ľ demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces ľ does not have the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy skepticism ľ if not ridicule by many Western citizens. ..."
"... What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially in the US. The political class ľ the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media ľ are frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump. ..."
"... Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that they have already made", said Peskov. ..."
"... There seems to be a collective delusional mindset. ..."
"... the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for demise by blaming it all on Russia. ..."
"... The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity, as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt. ..."
"... Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics ..."
"... The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia. ..."
"... When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was reported to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month, the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence. ..."
"... What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence". ..."
"... Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between the Trump campaign team and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the existence of any evidence. ..."
"... And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate media. ..."
"... Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake. That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case. But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument. ..."
"... This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics. ..."
There was a time when Russophobia served as an effective form of population control ľ used by the
American ruling class in particular to command the general US population into patriotic loyalty.
Not any longer. Now, Russophobia is a sign of weakness, of desperate implosion among the US ruling
class from their own rotten, internal decay.
This propaganda technique worked adequately well during the Cold War decades when the former Soviet
Union could be easily demonized as "godless communism" and an "evil empire". Such stereotypes, no
matter how false, could be sustained largely because of the monopoly control of Western media by
governments and official regulators.
The Soviet Union passed away more than a quarter of a century ago, but Russophobia among the US
political class is more virulent than ever.
This week it was evident from Congressional
hearings in Washington into alleged Russian interference in US politics that large sections of
American government and establishment media are fixated by Russophobia and a belief that Russia is
a malign foreign adversary.
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems
to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications
which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary
Russophobia ľ demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces ľ does not have
the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news
media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example
allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy
skepticism ľ if not ridicule by many Western citizens.
What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider
public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially
in the US. The political class ľ the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media ľ are
frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some
kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump.
But this frenzy of Russophobia is not reflected among the wider public of ordinary American citizens.
Rabid accusations that Russia hacked the computers of Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to spread
damaging information about her; that this alleged sabotage of American democracy was an "act of war";
that President Trump is guilty of "treason" by "colluding" with a "Russian influence campaign" ľ
all of these sensational claims seem to be only a preoccupation of the privileged political class
. Most ordinary Americans, concerned about making a living in a crumbling society, either don't buy
the claims or view them as idle chatter.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged
Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have
become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that
they have already made", said Peskov.
Other suitable imagery is that the US political class are tilting at windmills, chasing their
own tails, or running from their own shadows. There seems to be a collective delusional mindset.
Unable to accept the reality that the governing structure of the US has lost legitimacy in the
eyes of the people, that the people rebelled by electing an outsider in the form of business mogul-turned-politician
Donald Trump, that the collapse of American traditional politics is due to the atrophy of its bankrupt
capitalist economy over several decades ľ the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for
demise by blaming it all on Russia.
The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure
in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread
disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That
is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity,
as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt.
Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment
to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics.
The corrosive, self-destruction seems to know no bounds. James Comey, the head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
told Congress this week that the White House is being probed for illicit contacts with Russia.
This dramatic notice served by Comey was greeted with general approval by political opponents of
the Trump administration, as well as by news media outlets.
The New York Times said the FBI was in effect holding a "criminal investigation at the doorstep
of the White House".
Other news outlets are openly
airing discussions on the probability of President Trump being impeached from office.
The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration
is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of
suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia.
President Trump has run afoul with Republicans in Congress over his planned healthcare reforms
because many Republicans are taking issue instead over the vaunted Russian probe.
When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was
to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month,
the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence.
What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little
evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo
and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence".
Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this
week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between
the Trump campaign team and the Russian government.
Even former senior intelligence officials, James Clapper and Michael Morell who are no friends
of Trump, have lately admitted in media interviews that there is no such evidence.
Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal
investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the
existence of any evidence.
And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House
was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate
Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake.
That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case.
But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument.
That then means that the Washington seat of government and the US presidency are tearing themselves
apart in a futile civil war.
The real war here is a power struggle within the US in the context of ruling parties no longer
having legitimacy to govern.
This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but
a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics.
"... " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson. ..."
"... I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves. ..."
"... He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish. ..."
"... In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics. ..."
"... "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. ..."
"... And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
"... Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence. ..."
"Intel chair Devin Nunes unsure if Trump associates were
By Mike Levine...Mar 23, 2017...5:24 PM ET
" The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin
Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President
Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on
the phone calls or other communications now being cited as
partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims
against the Obama administration, according to a
"He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested
from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows
for sure," a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday..."
I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here
symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership
got on themselves.
He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he
can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia
came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some
sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish.
In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached
from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic
witch hunt dynamics.
It became by-and-large out of control of Democratic
leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it.
But they can't call the dogs back.
It was a dirty but effective trick to avoid sacking
Democratic Party failed, corrupt neoliberal leadership
(Clinton wing of the party). It worked, but it come with a
As Glenn Greenwald noted.
"The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media
figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from
feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free
conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after
both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now
millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a
Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there
is no evidence.
And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as
inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and
Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the
expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now
trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal
that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis
in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led
circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael
Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context
is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA
surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the
pages of the New York Times but also became the first high
official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming,
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin
had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence
community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question
of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here,
there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said,
adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little
candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking
"Obama's "Russia Hacked The Election" is CODE for "Trump Stole The Election."
Any "provable" instance of Russian hacking might also be a false flag operation
to justify new round of sanctions. That make Obama to look especially bad as he
asked CA to investigate this case, while t might well be that CIA is the agency
that needs to be investigated. They now have a lot of friends n Baltic republics
and Ukrane to stage also false flag operation attributable to Russia, they wish.
Remeber Oswald and JFK assassination.
In keeping with the theme
of providing no proof to the
general public, the
officials declined to
describe the intelligence
involvement of a third-party
in passing on leaked
material to WikiLeaks,
saying they did not
want to reveal how the U.S.
government had obtained the
just trust them, please.
Good thing we can completely
trust the integrity of
17 Intelligence Agencies
because this explanation is
exactly what a corrupt and
politicized institution would
use to try to pass off a
completely fabricated story as
Looking at some of the 'information' from previous hacks
1. Sony - claimed to be North Korea
2. DNC/Clinton email - claimed to be Russia
3. Various - claimed to be China
4. Iranian centrifuges - no claims, but pretty good indication it was CIA/NSA/Israel
Now, who from that list didn't want HRC to be president. One could make a compelling case that #4, particularly Israel, would go this route and have the wherewithall/foresight to make it look like #2 - and Obama/Kerry allowing the UN vote to go through as punishment. Or, we can believe #2 was sloppy (or intentionally sloppy to send a message/rub our noses in it). Or, it was some 14 year old operating from their parents basement - nah, no 14 year old would think of covering their tracks to make it look like someone else.
thought crimes are where you find them, ask the catholic church.
seriously though, john mccain is an asset of the mossad. no other formation does it justice:
"We will obviously be talking about the hacking, but the main thing is the whole issue of cybersecurity," the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said ahead of the hearing. "Right now we have no policy, no strategy to counter cyberattacks."
check this shit out (my bold): Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War
By Jeff Gates, State Street Publications, 2008, paperback, 320 pp. List: $27.95; AET: $18
you really want to understand why this is going on, read.on; others be assured it is true.).
In his chapter on "John McCain and the Financial Frauds,"Ł Gates reviews McCain's unsavory role in the "Keating Five"Ł scandal. The following chapter recounts the shameful role of McCain's father in helping to
cover up Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded
. "From a game theory perspective,"Ł Gates explains, "by covering up the murder of Americans aboard the USS Liberty, a U.S. president
(with the aid of Admiral John McCain, Jr.
) confirmed that Israeli extremists could murder Americans
endangering U.S. support."Ł
Reviewed by Andrew I. Killgore
GUILT BY Association is an initially confusing masterpiece almost too stuffed with evidence to concentrate on making clear its basic theme. But author Jeff Gates did so in a recent letter to a distinguished retired American diplomat: "The research pivoted off the firsthand experience of "śJohn Doe' whose experience spans 56 years of dealing with a
transnational criminal syndicate whose senior operatives share a common ideology in fundamental Judaism and a skill set experienced in displacing facts with beliefs.
Thus the common source of the fixed intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. And, thus the same network now being employed to expand this war to Iran."Ł
From 1980 to 1987 Gates served as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, working with Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana,
son of the state's former Gov. Huey Long, who was assassinated at age 42 as he was preparing a presidential campaign. James Farley, postmaster general under President Franklin Roosevelt, had run a "penny postcard"Ł poll confirming that if Huey Long actually ran for president, Roosevelt could not be re-elected.
Fifty years later Russell Long remained convinced that Roosevelt's people had killed his father.
At a 2002 speech Gates gave in London, he met "John Doe,"Ł related to one of the well-known people who had endorsed two of Gates' earlier books. Soon afterward, Doe assured him that if Gates undertook the research and analysis the results of which appear in Guilt, the evidence would identify who killed Huey Long, and why. The facts Gates assembled point not to Roosevelt's people but to the syndicate identified in Guilt.
The brilliantly provocative Guilt by Association consists of nine chapters: "Game Theory and the Mass Murder of 9/11"Ł; "Organized Crime in Arizona"Ł; "John McCain and Financial Frauds"Ł; "McCain Family Secret: The Cover-Up"Ł; "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime"Ł; "Money, Democracy and the Great Divide"Ł; "The New Anti-Semitism"Ł; "Would Obama Be Better?"Ł; and "The Way Forward."Ł
In the first chapter Gates illustrates the intergenerational sophistication with which neoconservatives "prepared the minds"Ł of the American public to invade Iraq in response to 9/11. Academics and think tanks pushed Samuel Huntington's 1996 Clash of Civilizations to promote a "clash consensus"Ł-five years before 9/11. That same year Richard Perle along with other neocons such as Douglas Feith wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"Ł for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This helped lay more "mental threads"Ł for removing Saddam Hussain. Then Senators McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton signed it.
Four days after the destruction of the World Trade Towers, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was urging President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Not only was there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was no real connection between Saddam's secular regime and the deeply religious al-Qaeda. At the same time, other Zionists from the U.S. Defense Department under Wolfowitz and, not so coincidentally, Feith were feeding false intelligence to the White House. The war would not be costly, according to Wolfowitz, and the entirely unnecessary and illegal war was launched.
In the chapter on "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime,"Ł Gates describes a John McCain who was either "ignorant about-or complicit in"Ł Russian organized crime. During Boris Yeltsin's first term as president of Russia, a handful of "oligarchs' financially pillaged Russia. Six of the "Big Seven"Ł oligarchs, whom Gates terms Ashkenazis, qualify for Israeli citizenship.
McCain described Mikhail Khodorovsky, the most infamous of Russia's corrupt oil oligarchs, as a "political prisoner."Ł Notes Gates: "To claim Khodorovsky as a "śpolitical prisoner' requires a closer look at how, at 32 years of age, a single Russian-Ashkenazi citizen amassed state-owned assets worth more than $30 billion."Ł Gates goes on to document the widespread criminality involved in Khodorovsky's billions.
"To solve this systemic criminality,"Ł Gates explains, "requires that a broad base of Americans understand how this "śfields-within-fields' modus operandi operates unseen yet in plain sight, and how its operations progress working through people whose profiled needs become the means for influencing their behavior."Ł
Guilt describes how Americans were induced to freely choose the very forces that endanger their freedom. Thus the role of those masterful at waging "war by deception"Ł (the motto of the Israeli Mossad) by displacing facts with what the "mark"Ł (i.e., the U.S.) could be deceived to believe: for example, that Iraq had nuclear weapons and mobile biological weapons laboratories and that the secular Saddam Hussain had ties with the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda.
Crafted as a wake-up call, the author documents how Tel Aviv wields control over U.S. foreign policy in an environment where lawmakers have been intimidated by the Israel lobby. "U.S. national security,"Ł Gates writes, "requires a rejection of the self-deception that Israel operates as a trustworthy ally in an unstable region while ignoring its multi-decade role in provoking and sustaining instability."Ł
As Gates points out, the charge of anti-Semitism is used to misdirect and intimidate. As the criminality he documents becomes transparent, moderate Jews in fact are emerging as allies. The Zionist component-which Gates convincingly portrays as
ideology in the service of criminality
-has as its goal an extensive, Jews-only realm in an oil-rich region.
The facts confirm that Tel Aviv will never agree to peace with the Palestinians, as that would preclude their expansionist agenda for a Greater Israel. An oft-employed "entropy strategy"Ł remains Israel's means to preclude settlement of the conflict. Indeed, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is revealed as only the latest in a long series of manipulations-each of which is designed to ensure a plausible evildoer. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Jews catalyze serial conflicts of opposites, while
this transnational criminal syndicate profits off the misery of both.
Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government
By Grant F. Smith, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), 2008, paperback, 340 pp. List: $14.95; AET: $11.
Reviewed by Delinda C. Hanley
The declassification on June 10, 2008 of long-secret Department of Justice (DOJ) documents is the springboard for Grant F. Smith's latest book revealing the inner workings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This ground-breaking study spotlights the Israel lobby's key architect, Isaiah L. Kenen, and uncovers how he and subsequent Israel-firsters morphed from being openly registered as foreign agents, who should have remained employees of the Israeli Embassy's Office of Information, into "American"Ł domestic lobbyists for Israel, a far more benign, if dishonest, nomenclature.
Smith's very readable book reproduces and analyzes the highly deceptive Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings Kenen made while he was still an employee of the Israeli government in New York. It proceeds on to the American Zionist Council (ACZ), the precursor organization where AIPAC gestated. Referencing internal DOJ records, the book painstakingly documents previously undisclosed attempts by the Justice Department and dissenting Jewish groups, including the American Council for Judaism, to close down Kenen's Israeli-financed political propaganda operation-or to at least make it openly register and disclose its activities under FARA.
Thanks to Kenen's efforts, AIPAC's Zionist financial backers succeeded in laundering money, purchasing arms, smuggling stolen U.S. military hardware, and launching Israel's nuclear and military weapons industries. They paid for some of it with tax-exempt "charitable"Ł donations, though a far larger percentage came from U.S. tax-dollars-without ever having to come out of the shadows.
Coming 20 years after Kenen's death, Smith's book is a powerful reminder to readers about the effectiveness of stealth public relations and the importance of framing stories for the mainstream media. (Kenen also launched the Near East Report, AIPAC's biweekly flagship publication, which is still a vital public relations tool for Israel.) This close examination of AIPAC's birth and struggle for power is a valuable lesson about nascent foreign interest lobbies, prosecutorial discretion, and the subversion of the rule of law by political elites.
America's Defense Line reads like a fascinating spy thriller or "who done it"Ł that is hard to put down-until, that is, one remembers that AIPAC and its supporters are still at it-and, usually, getting away with it. (Stay tuned for the espionage trial of former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.)
Readers of Smith's book, perhaps alongside Jeff Gates' Guilt By Association, will have all the history and information necessary to loosen AIPAC's grip upon our nation once and for all-but only if we all insist that the rule of law once again become the law of the land.
Delinda C. Hanley is news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
You're correct, but Assange did offer $20,000 for information on Rich's murder. One could infer this was Assange's way of telling us his murder is related to the leaked emails without technically divulging his source.
Your question is absolutely valid! Assange said that the first batch of documents he published were given to him by a 'democratic staffer from the DNC'. After Seth was murdered - he offered the monies to find the murderer. I should have stated it that way in my comment. Be as it may Assange connected the dots for me when using the verbiage 'democratic staffer - DNC - Seth Rich - murdered. My bad!
You don't have to wonder since Craig Murray has said the source was domestic. That is the absurdity of this entire affair--we have the intermediary on record, a career diplomat, and no one has publicly questioned him. This whole thing is akin to the cops catching a white guy leaving a house with stolen goods, then they go into the house to investigate and find a dead body and there is another guy standing there with a smoking gun and then they decide not only to ignore the murder, they put out a warrant for a black guy who was nowhere near the crime, letting the original burgler off the hook too. That's how idiotic and off the trail of the important crimes these guys are. I mean why the hell are we not talking about the legit classified docs that Hillary allowed to be pilfered by multiple foreign (and probably domestic) sources anymore? Seems to me that is the actual crime.
> How about we send Congressional children and cia children first into battle against the Russians if they feel so strongly about it. <
Well, "someone's children" are already being sent to what could easily be the "Front Line" in a land battle against Mother Russia, and you can safely bet that none of these cannon-fodder will have families "with connections". THEIR children are all assured comfortable office jobs in the Pentagon, or similar.
California just hired Eric "Too Big To Jail" Holder as its point man against Trump deporting the illegals. I am dumbfounded. He is obviously such a whore and incompetent/unethical attorney. I figured he would be smart and stay on the gold course. Shows you how stupid and blindly partisan Californians are.
Add Holder to the list of those who have lied so much that nobody believes jack shit from them. Dems don't get it. The Clintonistas have gone back to the well about one thousand times too many. They are sooooo old and worn. Incapable of flexing with the wind and forming new ideas.
Nancy Pelosi is starting to look her age all of the sudden. Put on about ten pounds. And wrinkles and saggy jowels.
BTW: We don't need new ideas, just the Constitution.
Where's the collusion?
Even former DNI Director Clapper said there is no evidence.
explains: "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures
and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly
unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did
after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions
of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which,
at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day,
which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven
and Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that
have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them
have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no
basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President
Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly
notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates.
In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but
also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty,
claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited
Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Democrats will do just about anything to avoid sacking their failed, corrupt,
said in reply to JohnH...
House also tweeted that former intelligence director James Clapper was
"right" to say there was "no evidence of collusion between Russia and
Trump Campaign." But Clapper said he had no such information "at the
time," meaning before he left office in January.
The White House, in a tweet, and Spicer, in his daily press briefing,
attempted to dismiss the possibility of collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russian officials by citing comments made by intelligence
leaders in the Obama administration, as well as by Democratic and Republican
leaders who have been briefed on the investigation to date.
But the White House misrepresented the comments of those officials.
As the attached video shows, the White House tweet left out an important
qualifier. Comey said Clapper was "right" to say that there was no evidence
of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign contained in the
declassified report released Jan. 6 on Russian activities during the
2016 presidential election.
Clapper made his remarks about the report in a "Meet the Press" interview
on March 5, when he was asked whether there were "improper contacts
between the Trump campaign and Russian officials."
"We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,'
that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence,
that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members
of the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper said. "There was no
evidence of that included in our report."
Clapper went on to say "at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion."
But he added, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time
since I left the government."
Clapper also said, "I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest,
in the current president's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in
the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom
of all this."
"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked, "You admit your report that
you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?"
"It did - well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent
of the evidence we had at the time," Clapper said. "Whether there is
more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations
will be revelatory, I don't know."
Asked what the Senate intelligence committee could learn through
an investigation that Clapper's agency could not, Clapper replied, "Well,
I think they can look at this from a broader context than we could."
So Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was
no evidence of collusion "at the time" he left office in January. And
he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted
to clear the air.
Key Dem points to evidence of collusion between Russia, Team Trump
03/23/17 08:00AM - Updated 03/23/17 01:37PM
By Steve Benen
. . .
But on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, the California Democrat again talked
to Chuck Todd, and this time he took another step forward when describing
the nature of the evidence.
TODD: But you admit, all you have right now is a circumstantial case?
SCHIFF: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than
that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial
evidence now. So, again, I think -
TODD: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?
SCHIFF: I don't to want go into specifics, but I will say that there
is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation.
So, that is what we ought to do.
When we contacted the congressman's office, asking if Schiff may
have misspoken, and giving him a chance to walk this back, his office
said Schiff meant what he said. . . .
There's some fire along with all the smoke being generated.
US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have
coordinated with Russians
By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Jim
US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with
Washington (CNN) - The FBI has information that indicates
associates of President Donald Trump communicated with
suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the
release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's
campaign, US officials told CNN.
This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring
to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before
Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's
ties to Russia, according to one source.
The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes
human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and
accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S.
officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI
counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may
have taken place, though officials cautioned that the
information was not conclusive and that the investigation is
In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began
looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign
associates and suspected Russian operatives because the
bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or
reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an
agent of a foreign power."
The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to
White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday
after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest
any collusion took place.
"Investigating it and having proof of it are two different
things," Spicer said.
One law enforcement official said the information in hand
suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact
and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release
information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who
spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from
the information gathered so far since it's largely
The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but
the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of
the investigation, the officials said.
The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump
campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger
Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to
US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and
CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the
information the FBI is reviewing.
One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in
finding conclusive intelligence is that communications
between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent
months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the
Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed
their methods of communications, making monitoring more
difficult, the officials said.
Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began
orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach
of the Democratic National Committee and associated
organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton
campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Russian operation was also in part focused on the
publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at
undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators
say they are less focused on the coordination and publication
of those "fake news" stories, in part because those
publications are generally protected free speech.
The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed
an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger
case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously
lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most
highly classified programs, such as those focused on
intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for
investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing
Investigators continue to analyze the material and
information from multiple sources for any possible
indications of coordination, according to US officials.
Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what
specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing
US officials said the information was not drawn from the
leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former
British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political
opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination
between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.
doubt in my mind that Trump's team did in fact collude with
the Russians, and that the investigation will ultimately come
to the same conclusion. That's when the fun begins, if
impeachment proceedings can be called fun. Trump will deny,
deny, deny that he had any knowledge of the collusion; the
fact that he's a serial liar won't prevent most Republicans
from voting against his impeachment. Only Trump can save us
by doing a Nixon and resigning. He won't though, and we'll be
right back where we are, with one huge exception: we'll have
a proven traitor sitting in the White House, kept there by a
Agreed. If in fact the FBI can prove substantial ties between
the Russians and the Trump team co-ordinating the Wikileak
email dump, that has to qualify as "high crimes and
And given that, at this point, President
Cheeto is so unpopular, plus the FBI's evidence (yet to be
proven), they would almost have to vote for impeachment or
risk losing re-election in their home districts.
Go make some popcorn, grab your favorite beverage, sit
back and enjoy the sound of them imploding.
Like Whitewater, this investigation will take years and may
well come up empty.
Meanwhile, Democrats can obsess about
how unfair the election was, deny any notion that Hillary was
a lousy candidate, and refuse to figure out how to talk to
working people or come up with any kind of coherent economic
Trump-Putin shows that they are willing to do most any
distraction to keep from having to keep their eye on the
As a result, Democrats will mostly likely circle the
wagons to foist another mealy mouthed neoliberal on the
electorate in 2020 in the tradition of Gore, Kerry, and
Hillary, a candidate who will almost certainly assure Trump a
Despite a string of congressional losses, the sclerotic,
corrupt leadership refuses get rid of their losing
leadership. It would appear that Democrats have grown to love
playing Washington Generals to Republicans' Harlem
The current requirement for a duopoly assures that there
is always a place for losers.
Mark my words: "The Trump-Putin investigation [will take]
years because [investigators can't] find any wrongdoing from
[Trump-Putin] and so then continued looking into
[Trump-Putin] whenever they could, simply to keep the witch
If they had any evidence beyond innuendo and
hearsay, we would have seen some of it by now.
Trump-Putin has become an elaborate distraction to keep
Democrats from looking honestly at their failure, and to keep
the American public entertained as Trump guts the remnants of
their safety net.
10:05 a.m. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but the effort to describe the Russia
network as diabolical propaganda without mentioning Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio
Free Europe continues to amaze. Apparently Russia is the only country that funds a media network
intended to influence foreign audiences.
Nunes in his opening statement characterizes RT as a disinformation effort that "traffics in anti-American
conspiracies," rivaling Soviet propaganda. Here it is hard not to think of the joint intel report
that cited the network's reporting on Occupy Wall Street, "corporate greed" and fracking as evidence
of its anti-American nature. It also decried the network's use of the term "surveillance state" to
describe the U.S., which will be pretty ironic considering the content of today's hearing.
Again, it's a small point, but by these standards pretty much any alternative media outlet is "anti-American,"
and it's alarming to hear Democrats later ape this language in reference to RT.
10:20 a.m. Schiff delivers a long speech that essentially lays out the Trump-Russia conspiracy. Twitter
seems to be unanimous that it's a powerful piece of rhetoric.
Among other things, he unblinkingly cites the Christopher Steele's "golden showers" dossier as
a source. This seems like a pretty intense political calculation given that Michael Morell, who would
have been Hillary Clinton's CIA director, basically called the dossier useless just last week. The
dossier "doesn't take you anywhere, I think," Morell said. But it's all over this hearing, with multiple
Democratic members citing it. What that means, who knows, but it's interesting to see that level
of commitment from the Democrats.
10:32 a.m. Comey creates the big headline of the day by saying, "I have been authorized ... to
confirm that the FBI is investigating" the Russia story.
This both is and isn't big news. Although it's the first time it's been stated publicly, the existence
of this investigation has been common knowledge for a long time. Most of the leaked reports on the
topic have included this information.
For instance, The New York Times story from February 14th, about Trump officials having had "contact"
with Russian intelligence, spoke definitively of an investigation into possible collusion between
the Trump campaign and the Putin government.
Still, that doesn't mean Comey had to do what he did today. Is this payback to Trump for accusing
the FBI of illegally wiretapping him? Is it a good-faith effort to square the ledger in terms of
his previous highly controversial decision to out the Clinton email investigation? It's curious and
bold either way. One wonders if Trump might fire him.
The true newsworthy detail, of course, isn't that Comey disclosed the existence of an FBI investigation
into Trump ľ as Democrats should know better than anyone, that doesn't necessarily mean anything
ľ but that Comey is doing this now and didn't do so earlier, before the election. Obviously, he made
a different choice with regard to the Clinton email story, and the Democrats rightfully should be
furious about that.
10:36 a.m. Nunes asks Rogers if Russians hacked vote tallies in Michigan. Rogers answers no, noting
that the NSA doesn't do domestic surveillance. Nunes goes on to ask about Pennsylvania, Ohio and
Wisconsin, knowing Rogers won't answer. It's a totally meaningless exchange, but instantly becomes
This is what these hearings are for, primarily. Except for very rare occasions when mega-careful
witnesses like Comey and Rogers decide to give up tidbits, for the most part these hearings are held
so that House members can ping-pong talking points off witnesses, and then circulate clips of themselves
asking questions to which they already know the answers.
10:39 a.m. Florida Republican Tom Rooney asks Rogers about incidental collection of data about
"U.S. persons" under the Section 702 program. Admiral Rogers' explanation for how they use that data,
and how they protect the rights of U.S. companies and citizens ľ redacting or "masking" identities,
for instance ľ is almost comically non-reassuring.
Reading between the lines, the NSA seems to have basically unrestricted ability to snoop on foreigners.
When their targets are speaking to American persons or communicating with American companies, the
agency also seems to have an absurdly permissive mandate to listen to whatever they want to listen
to. Only later, it seems, do they figure out how to justify it legally.
This is an example of how the hyper-partisan nature of these hearings spoils American politics.
Liberals especially should be seriously concerned about such surveillance overreach by the intelligence
agencies, and also about leaks directed against individuals by intelligence officials. Similarly,
conservatives should be mortified by the possibility of foreign interference in our electoral process.
But because both of these issues are tied in highly specific ways to the political fortunes of
Donald Trump, each issue will be ignored by one side and thundered over by the other.
11:03 a.m. Schiff asks both men if Obama wiretapped Trump as Trump claimed. "I have no information
that supports those tweets," Comey says. Asked if he engages in McCarthyism, Comey says he tries
"not to engage in any isms of any kind, including McCarthyism." He gets laughs. Comey is a very,
very slick witness, difficult to read.
An interesting development in this hearing is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are
treating these witnesses as hostile. And both Comey and Rogers are in their own ways giving both
Nunes and Schiff what they want so far. They're allowing members of both parties to make speeches
and ask their suggestive questions, while giving them next to nothing.
11:19 a.m. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, last seen spending two expensive years stepping
on his weenie in a pathetic effort to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton through the
Benghazi probe, comes on to the delight of, well, nobody. Gowdy is the first to cross
over into open unfriendliness. Ominously, he starts trying to get Comey to say reporters
could be held criminally liable for disclosing secret information.
Gowdy later scores
a point by getting Comey to explain a hypothetical: how he would go about investigating
the leak of a U.S. citizen's name that appears in a newspaper. (He's clearly talking
Comey, with the caveat that he's not talking about anyone specific, lays out how he
would do that, talking about identifying the "universe" of people with access to that
information and then using investigative techniques to further narrow the field.
Indirectly, Comey confirms Gowdy's interpretation of a "felonious" disclosure to a
newspaper that must be prosecuted. It sets up a demand that Comey investigate and
prosecute that leak.
Gowdy does in fact go on to make such a demand. But Comey cockblocks Gowdy and says
he "can't" promise that he will investigate the leaks.
Gowdy looks like someone just stole his box of Mike and Ikes. He seems surprised,
like he didn't expect Comey's answer. Comey smiles and glares at Gowdy like the
third-rater he is.
11:43 a.m. Jim Himes asks Comey if Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Comey
says yes. Glad we cleared that up.
11:52 a.m. Mike Conaway of Texas points out that determining the source of a hacking
campaign is a forensic enterprise, but asks how they determine intent. In the process,
he pins down Rogers as saying he had a "lower level" of confidence in the idea that the
Russians preferred Trump to Clinton.
Conaway then plunges into a bizarre metaphor about how his wife went to Texas Tech,
so he roots for the Red Raiders and dislikes the Longhorns, or something. Conaway seemed
to want to ask if it is possible to root against Texas without liking the Red Raiders,
or the opposite, but pretty much everyone watching instantly loses track of whether
Hillary Clinton is Texas or Texas Tech in the metaphor.
Comey confidently goes with it. "Wherever the Red Raiders are playing, you want them
to win and their opposition to lose," he says. He goes on to elaborate on the metaphor,
talking about how the Russians later in the year knew the Red Raiders were going to
lose, "so you hope key people on the other team get hurt so they are not as tough an
opponent down the road."
The substantively interesting thing here is Comey's sly disclosure that the Russians
late in the game expected Trump to lose the election. But his deft handling of Conaway's
bumbling hypothetical overshadows the answer.
12:21 p.m. Nunes tries on a new rhetorical line: It's absurd to say Russians prefer
Republicans, because Reagan!
This is silly, of course, because Trump is a different animal from Reagan, but then
Comey and Rogers do something equally silly. On the question of whether the Russians
preferred Romney or McCain over Obama, they both look at each other like it's crazy to
suggest they ever considered the question. Isn't it their job to know things like that?
They're clearly dissembling.
"Is there any way you can comment on whether or not Mr. McCabe told that to Mr.
Priebus?" King asks.
Comey gives a classically Comeyish answer:
"I can't, Mr. King, but I can agree with your general premise. Leaks have always been
a problem. I read over the weekend [about] George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
complaining about them. But I do agree in the last six weeks and months there apparently
have been a lot of instances of conversations appearing in the media, and a lot of it is
dead wrong. Which is one of the challenges, because we don't correct it. It's made it
difficult because people are talking, or at least reporters are saying people are
talking, in ways that have struck me as being unusually active."
Translation: blow me, I'm not telling you what McCabe said to Priebus. King basically
thanks them both and retreats. King will spend much of the day apologizing for asking
perfectly legitimate questions.
Although the hearing has generated tons of headlines before it hits the halfway mark,
it's really a giant tease.
Both Comey and Rogers indicated from the start that they will reserve their more
candid testimony for a later classified hearing with these same members. For the public,
this means one thing: we'll continue to get no real answers, and a heavily partisan and
politicized version of events, no matter what happens. So long as the investigations
aren't closed, and the real information is kept behind closed doors, both parties can
pursue their rhetorical campaigns unchecked. And the testimony of people like Comey and
Rogers will be useful only for driving interest in the reading of tea leaves.
There should probably be three entirely separate investigations. One should concern
the question of whether, or to what extent, the Russians interfered with the election.
That's a non-partisan question, really, one everyone should care about, but Republicans
won't do anything about it because they will perceive the entire issue as a partisan
attack on Trump.
A second inquiry could deal with the question of illegal/politicized leaks of secret
surveillance data coming from the "IC." Again, in reality this is a non-partisan
concern. Were congressional Democrats really interested in getting at whatever the
intelligence community has on Trump, a bipartisan inquiry of this nature would be an
excellent pressure point.
Lastly, you could have a completely separate set of hearings into the question of
whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in anything untoward in its dealings with
Russians last year. If there's anything to this, the public needs to hear it, and it all
needs to be public.
But don't expect answers anytime soon. Hearings like today's only add to the
frustrating strangeness of this scandal, and it looks like this will continue for quite
The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President
Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine,
reports Gilbert Doctorow.
Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial
support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a
fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding
U.S. policy toward Russia.
For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal
interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested
victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars
somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable
While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced
since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup
in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea
to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.
But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard ľ and that the opinion centers
of Washington and New York have allowed ľ is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression."
Those who try to express dissenting opinions ľ noting, for instance,
the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well
as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government ľ have been essentially banned from both
the U.S. mass media and professional journals.
When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the
other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and
ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.
An Encouraging Sign
That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal
of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment)
of publishing Robert English's
article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new DÚtente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink
and does so with careful scholarship.
A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)
In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors
for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or
new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together
the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency
and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.
The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed
professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the
facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on
allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under
attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."
The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats
have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored
Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military
alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The
wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently
English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why
and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin
brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.
English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify
election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing
on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when
the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."
English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by
the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong
when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection,
governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings
English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of
Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate)
Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S.
policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards
Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.
Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western
democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's
own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions
for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries
English concludes his essay with a call to give dÚtente with Putin and Russia a chance.
Who Is Robert English?
English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California
web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration
and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor
with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.
Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by
He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 1982ľ1986 at the Department
of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience
as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.
Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election
campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie
Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation,
which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy
Realist of 2016."
English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary
utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this
article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.
By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's
inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic
who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.
While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive
in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire.
The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing
their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a
politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines
that might be deployed against him or her.
Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking
for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources
who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true
The Politics of Geopolitics
Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another
to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream
Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let
him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20
Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor
Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September
2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian
annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.
It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied
like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs
readers ľ about one-third of the commenters ľ who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments.
But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of
the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.
Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found
themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers,
which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors
In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of
the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up
article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia,
a direct response to Putin's
speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War
and other policies.
Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their
bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald
Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.
Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many
years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did
not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.
Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill
with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality
is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.
The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the
libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's
entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working
for Vladimir Putin."
Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun
cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations
into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.
In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has
dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to
the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia
That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign
that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained
that eventually the truth will prevail.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have
a Future? was published in August 2015.
Rachel Maddow looks at the role of Russian bot networks and cyber war tactics during the 2016 U.S.
election and notes that those things didn't just go away after the election. She proves to be
a talented anti-Russian warmonger. Very impressive piece of propaganda. Classic brainwashing.
MSNC clearly is in neo-McCarthyism camp and try to capitalize on anti-Russian hysteria. Of
cause, Rachel Maddow was and still is a Hillary puppet, so she should have her credibility already destroyed.
but people still watching her show and that's a problem. Previously she supported this neocon warmonger,
now she became one. The problem with her blabbing is that accounting to FBI Russians have written
off Trump in Summer 2016.
Looks like Democratic party brass can no longer control the anti-Russian hysteria why wiped
up, even if they realized that they went too far and the ability to lick thier wound by launching anti-Russian
hysteria and getting it to the sky level pitch has some adverse effects in a long run ...
"... This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign. ..."
"... A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase. ..."
"... It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us. ..."
This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She
has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign.
All her blows were below the belt.
This selective reporting of pieces of information is actually pretty disingenuous. Anybody
using those methods and by selective reporting of bits of information that support your viewpoint
can be painted as a Russian agent. Even EMichael :-)
The problem with her blabbing is that according to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer
Listening to this show by MSNBC is so disguising, that I lost any respect for it.
Fool Me Once ... - Crowdstrike Claimed Two Cases
Of "Russian Hacking" - One Has Been Proven Wrong
The cyber-security company Crowdstrike claimed that the "Russia" hacked the Democratic National
Committee. It also claimed that "Russia" hacked artillery units of the Ukrainian army. The second
claim has now be found to be completely baseless. That same is probably the case with its claims
related to the DNC.
The DNC was likely not hacked at all. Some insider with access to its servers may have taken
the emails to publish them. On July 10 2016 the DNC IT administrator Sean Rich was found fatally
shot on the streets of Washington DC. To this day no culprit has been found. The crime is unsolved.
Five Congressional staffers and IT administrators from Pakistan, some of whom also worked for
the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access
to Congressional computers. They had the password of Wasserman-Schultz and may have had access
to the DNC servers.
Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" have evidently been false with regards to the Ukrainian
artillery. Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" in the case of the DNC have never been supported
or confirmed by independent evidence. There are reasons to believe that the loss of control of
the DNC's email archives were a case of unauthorized internal access and not a "hack" at all.
A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and
other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded.
These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian
enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase.
It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us.
"Devin Nunes is a conservative Republican from the San Joaquin Valley who
advised Donald Trump through his transition to the presidency. Adam Schiff is
a Los Angeles Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton and isn't shy in his
criticisms of the man who defeated her" [
Now the two California congressmen find themselves at the center of the political
universe, leading a House probe into Russian meddling in American politics .
The two have no qualms about expressing disagreements with what they deduce
from the same pot of information, but their joint appearances are a vestige
of the kind of bipartisanship that has all but disappeared from Washington.
And yet, Monday's hearing showed the partisan divide on the issue, with Republican
members focused on plugging government leaks of sensitive information and Democrats
interested in possible collusion." "Meddling," "collusion." Pretty squishy words
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [
(Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were
seeking to influence
Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
"From Russia, with Panic" [Yasha Levine,
(DG)]. This is an important post. Key point: "But in private
conversations, as well as little-noticed public discussions, security professionals
take a dimmer view of the cybersecurity complex. And the more I've looked at
the hysteria surrounding Russia's supposed hacking of our elections, the more
I've come to see it as a case study of everything wrong and dangerous about
the cyber-attribution business." For example: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ analyst
and founder of Capital Alpha Security who blogs under the influential Twitter
handle @pwnallthethings, found a Word document pilfered from the DNC and leaked
by Guccifer 2.0. As he examined its data signatures, he discovered that it had
been edited by Felix Edmundovich-a.k.a. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka.
To him, it was proof that Guccifer 2.0 was part of the same Russian intelligence
operation. He really believed that the super sophisticated spy group trying
to hide its Russian ties would register its Microsoft Word processor in the
name of the leader of the infamously brutal Soviet security service."
"Could the President Spy on His Political Opponents?" [
]. "But regardless of whether [Trump's "wiretapping"]
claims turn out to be completely false, which is all but certain now, they do
raise a question that shouldn't be casually dismissed: Could President Obama's
administration have surveiled his political opponents under its interpretation
of the law? Could President Trump's administration now do the same? The answer,
unfortunately, is yes."
"Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics
for Putin's Benefit" [
I used Slate because "2005" somehow didn't get into the headlines in the other
a blow-by-blow from NPR
I can well believe that the Democrats are so feckless that they ginned up
a Trump scandal with
the wrong foreign power
One thing we should
have learned over the past year or so is you can take any narrative being pushed by the
corporate media and Democrats, and
assume that the exact opposite is true
The current Trump-Russia hysteria could very well turn out to be the latest and most
embarrassing example of this phenomenon. In fact, well known Putin-critic, Masha Gessen,
recently warned in an interview with
her biggest fear is
a Trump-Putin conflict, not some imagined alliance.
Below I provide the excerpts from this lengthy interview which I believe are relevant
to the topic.
: I want to talk a little bit about where we are right
now. And then back up to why it is, in your life, you've figured out this expecting
the unimaginable. But recently, you know, American politics has been consumed by
Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. And you wrote something that a lot of people
were surprised by the other day, although I was not. And you said, "Beware the
And that, in fact, the Russia scandal that now threatens to engulf President
Trump's very new presidency, you wrote, "In effect, could be actually helping
President Trump and amount to a sort of a colossal distraction for us." What did you
mean by that?
: Well, a couple things. One is that, if you look at,
you know, what we actually know about the Russia story, which changes every day, but
what-at this point, what we actually know suggests that the likelihood that there's
going to be a causal link between the Russian interference in the American election
and the outcome of the election. The likelihood that was a causal link, and that that
causal link can be shown, is basically vanishingly small, right?
So-and I think that part of the reason-there are basically two reasons that a
lot of journalists and a lot of activists have been focusing on Russia is because it
serves as a crutch for the imagination. And again, I'm coming back to this topic of
imagination, which obsesses me.
So one way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is that it
allows us to imagine that, maybe, Trump will be so sullied by this Russia scandal, by
this connection, even if he can't prove a cause-causal link, just that the darkness
of the scandal will be thick enough of a cloud that he will eventually be impeached
by a Republican Congress.
That's a huge leap. And it also, I think, doesn't take into account the
tools-the rhetorical tools that will have to be used to sully Trump in such a way,
right? Which are basically xenophobic and, you know, corrosive to the public sphere.
And the other way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is it also
serves to explain how Trump could have happened to us, right? The Russians did it.
: That's exactly right; if it's an external thing. And
you wrote that very, very early on. Actually, before this latest round, that the real
threat to Trump would be to misunderstand where this comes from. And if it's not
Americans who voted for him, but somehow, it's a wily, dark conspiracy theory. That
leads you down a whole different set of responses to Trump.
: Right. Which-
: I think that's your point.
: That is my point. And also that it's destructive to
politics. Politics is what happens out in the open. And there's lots of politics
happening, right? There's this endless barrage of frightening bills being filed at
this point. There are the Cabinet appointments. There's the, you know, dismantling of
the federal government as we have known it for generations.
All of that is going on out in the open. And we only have so much bandwidth.
If we're not talking about what's going on out in the open, if we're talking about
conspiracy instead, then we are, by doing that, destroying the politics that we
should be preserving, right? I mean, how do we emerge out the other end, when Trump
ends, and Trump will eventually end. Everything ends, right?
If we've engaged in conspiracy theorizing this whole time, instead of engaging
in politics-and only by engaging in politics can we actually preserve the political
: I'm worried about Russia. I'm-this is-I mean, we're
already out of the honeymoon phase, and it's been less than two months. And I think
it's-I mean, the danger of having these two unhinged power-hungry men at
their-respective nuclear buttons cannot be overestimated. But-
: So you would see them as potential enemies as much
as potential friends? That this scenario-
: Oh, absolutely.
: -we should worry about is Trump versus Putin, not
just Trump and Putin uniting?
: Right. I'm actually worried about a collision with
She's exactly right. I completely agree that the disaster scenario with Putin and Trump
is if and when they actually clash. Once that happens, the corporate media and Democrats
will pretend they had nothing to do with it, as they always do. As Mark Ames noted on
All the worst Iraq war liars still have their fat media
jobs-where they now tell us public distrust in Establishment is a Kremlin conspiracy
Moving on, I want to once again turn to Robert Parry of
highlight just how ridiculous the whole "Putin bought off Trump aides" conspiracy is.
From yesterday's piece,
Missing Logic of Russia-gate
Democrats circulated a report showing that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who
served briefly as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, had received
payments from several Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.
The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in Moscow
in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the international Russian TV network,
with Flynn netting $33,750 after his speakers' bureau took its cut. Democrats treated
this revelation as important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump
campaign and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite different.
Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S. government
official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who often
pulled in six to ten times more, especially for speeches to foreign audiences. (
President Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment
bank with ties to the Kremlin, The New York Times
Yet, besides Flynn's relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post
RT negotiated Flynn's rate downward.
Deep inside its article on Flynn's Russia-connected payments, the Post wrote,
"RT balked at paying Flynn's original asking price. 'Sorry it took us longer to get
back to you but the problem is that the speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds
our budget at the moment,' Alina Mikhaleva, RT's head of marketing, wrote a Flynn
associate about a month before the event."
So, if you accept the Democrats' narrative that Russian President
Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential Americans to
betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed flunkies at RT are
quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest speaking fee?
Of course, you'll never hear any of this emphasized in the corporate media, they're
too busy pushing for a conflict between the U.S. and Russia.
A conflict that
once it happens, they will vehemently deny playing any role in propagating.
The Deep State/MSM trots out shit like this
precisely because the facts don't matter once the
narrative is set. Half the country will go on
thinking there's no way the story would have made it
this far were there not some there there.
I have wondered if some of the strategy is
to keep him on the run, on the defensive, so
that if he does go after some of the elite who
need to go down for their crimes, that it will
be framed as a dictator abusing his power,
engaged in partisan politics.
if he can go after them at all without looking
Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will
say that but they hate Trump no matter
Trump's deplorable supporters know
the score and will criticize if he doesn't
go after them hard and now is a perfect
opportunity. It was the Dummycrats who
demanded this investigation but want the
scope restricted to Russia, and Russia
only. And the rEpublicans won't bring this
up either because they suck too.
The first rule of Swamp Club is you
DO NOT talk about Anthony Weiner's laptop.
"Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that
but they hate Trump no matter what."
This whole "jew media hates Trump" meme is starting to put
off a foul stench. For one thing Trump has yet to do anything
to stop this war for greater Israel. Or take this latest
leak/Russian collusion news. After months of bluster, its a
nothing burger. Is Trump really made of that much teflon, or
is this all a show for the goyim and all the ignorant jews.
Just keep on scrolling. It really is starting to look like
Trump is a crypto jew:
Most reasonable people are sickened by this entire shit show, feel they
have no say, nor control. As always it is mostly a partisan echo chamber,
while the real events take on a life of their own. The great many, the
unwashed masses are merely riding on the crazy train, and the reality is
could give two shits. Other than that, another percentage spits back up
what they are told on the tee vee .
Yes, this paints a bleak picture,
but there you have it.
Sure its been goin on forever. Partisan head games, lying,
spying, stealing, cheating, theft, deep state parlor tricks,
hat tricks, etc. all that .. I didn't say the game nor human
beings were / was invented yesterday, and of course you're
spot on about glimpsing past the curtain, thank you interwebs.
I am merely saying, the depth of of problem, the extent, is
becoming increasingly "larger" by degrees of magnitude, as
will the eventual blow off top in my opinion, and also the
blowback, I would imagine ..
Obviously I could be
completely wrong on this and things will just swim along such
as they are, forever ..
...and the liberal snowflakes and their puppets in the "news" media will run
from this story like a vampire from garlic. Anything that proves them wrong or
might in any way bolster Trump is bad medicine for them...
A few days ago Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, introduced a piece of
legislation that would give the Department of Justice "new authority" to investigate potential violations
of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by the 'Russian Times' . Among other things, Shaheen said
the legislation was necessary to determine whether "RT News is coordinating with the Russian government
to spread misinformation and undermine our democratic process." We won't even bother to touch on
the inherent hypocrisy of such a statement, but here is the
press release from Shaheen's website :
Following intelligence reports that RT News operates as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government,
U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has introduced legislation that gives the Department of Justice
new authority to investigate potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by RT America.
"We have good reason to believe that RT News is coordinating with the Russian government to spread
misinformation and undermine our democratic process," said Shaheen. "The American public has a right
to know if this is the case. RT News has made public statements boasting that it can dodge our laws
with shell corporations, and it's time for the Department of Justice to investigate. My bill provides
the authority needed to request documentation of RT News and find out who they're accountable to."
The Director of National Intelligence's recent report titled Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections concluded that RT News officials have structured their affiliate
organizations to deliberately circumvent U.S. reporting and disclosure requirements under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. Senator Shaheen's Foreign Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement
Act gives the Department of Justice new authority to compel organizations like RT America to produce
documentation on funding sources and foreign connections.
Well, as it turns out, Russian officials have the power to launch meaningless witch hunts in their
country as well and have decided to demonstrate that power with the announcement today that they'll
launch a similar investigation into all U.S. media currently operating in Russia. Per
"... From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented. ..."
"... The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected ..."
"... now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
Is sanity finally returning? After weeks of ranting and raving about Russian "interference" and
Putin-Trump conspiracies, so-called 'intelligence' agencies and high-ranking Democrats are quietly
walking back their rhetoric and managing their base's expectations - simply put: there's no 'there',
If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build
up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy ľ Trump
will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.
From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the
Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other
issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless
it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate
the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.
The principal problem for Democrats is that so
many media figures and
online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free
conspiracies - just as
right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there
are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which,
at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard
as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.
"... In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton. ..."
"... Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign. ..."
In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts
come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton.
By Robert Parry
On Feb, 27, Consortiumnews.com published an article * describing misrepresentations by Canada's
new Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland about her Ukrainian maternal grandfather whom she has portrayed
as a hero who struggled "to return freedom and democracy to Ukraine" but left out that he was a Nazi
propagandist whose newspaper justified the slaughter of Jews.
Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist
Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was
asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell
the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign.
Freeland told reporters, "I don't think it's a secret. American officials have publicly said,
and even [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has publicly said, that there were efforts on the Russian
side to destabilize Western democracies, and I think it shouldn't come as a surprise if these same
efforts were used against Canada. I think that Canadians and indeed other Western countries should
be prepared for similar efforts to be directed at them."
Though Freeland did not comment directly on the truthfulness of our article, her office denied
that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator.
Other leaders of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government joined in the counterattack. Citing
the danger of Russian disinformation, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, said, "The situation
is obviously one where we need to be alert."
In an article on March 6, Canada's Globe and Mail also rallied to Freeland's defense claiming
that she was "being targeted by allegations in pro-Moscow websites that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather
was a Nazi collaborator."
The newspaper also reached out to other experts to add their denunciations of Consortiumnews.com
and other news sites that either reposted our story or ran a similar one.
"It is the continued Russian modus operandi that they have. Fake news, disinformation and targeting
different individuals," said Paul Grod, president of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress. "It is just
so outlandish when you hear some of these allegations ľ whether they are directed at minister Freeland
The Globe and Mail also quoted Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, Andriy Shevchenko, citing our supposedly
fake news as "another reason we should realize that Russia is waging a war against the free world.
It is not just about Ukraine."
The ambassador then offered some advice about standing up to the Russians and their disinformationists:
"I am absolutely sure they will seek new targets in the free world so I would encourage our Canadian
friends to be prepared for that, to stay strong and we will be happy to share our experience in how
to deal with all these information wars."
A Second-Day Story
The only problem with all these righteous condemnations was that the information about Freeland's
grandfather was true ľ and Freeland knew that it was true.
In a second-day story, The Globe and Mail had to revisit the issue, reporting that "Freeland knew
for more than two decades that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi
newspaper in occupied Poland that vilified Jews during the Second World War."
In other words, not only was our story accurate but Freeland knowingly launched a deceptive attack
on us and other news outlets to punish us for writing the truth.
And not only was our story correct but it was newsworthy, given Freeland's fierce support for
Ukrainian nationalism and her deep hatred of Russia. Canadians have a right to know what drives those
passions in their Foreign Minister. In this case, her worldview derived from her grandparents who
sided with Adolf Hitler and who fled to the West as the Soviet Red Army defeated the Nazis.
Yet, instead of fessing up and acknowledging these facts, Freeland chose to dissemble and slander
journalists who were doing their job. And the smears didn't entirely stop.
Even as the Globe and Mail admitted the reality about Freeland's grandfather, it continued to
disparage the journalists who had exposed the facts. The second line of the newspaper's second-day
article read: "Ms. Freeland's family history has become a target for Russian forces seeking to discredit
one of Canada's highly placed defenders of Ukraine." ...
Imagine such a Democratic opinion maker having absorbed and
been overtaken by Cold War thinking, unable to be
self-reflective enough to understand the disdain of a people
that is being fostered, how damaging this can be, evidently
wishing a return to the fearful 1950s.
That such a
Democratic opinion maker has come to use the language of the
1950s to instill disdain for a people and spread fear in
those who would question or dissent from the prejudice
continues to be shocking and dismaying.
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies ľ and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not. ..."
"... What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump ľ and could be deployed against anyone. ..."
"... This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic. ..."
The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of
how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our
communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives
to go after their enemies ľ and not even the President of the United States is immune. This
is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening
here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.
The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus ľ which civil libertarians have
warned could and probably would be used for political purposes ľ has been hailed by Trump and
his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed, Trump has called for the
execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression ľ
Edward Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence
and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.
And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite
We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of
Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation
from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on
conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.
What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force
inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump ľ and could
be deployed against anyone.
This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.
Also from the same thread: "RUSSIA!!!!!. Look guys, RUSSIA! The
Obama administration repeatedly broke federal laws, lied about breaking
those laws, got caught lying about breaking those laws (thank you
"whistle blowers") then said it stopped breaking said laws. Then
it got caught lying about saying it stopped breaking laws. "
"... At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. ..."
"... Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous: ..."
"... Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. ..."
"... Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. ..."
"... In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us ľ they didn't have evidence to go on. ..."
"Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media" [Matt Taibbi,
Rolling Stone ]. Well worth a read. "There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story . Moreover,
the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid.
Even Donald Trump thinks so ."
At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John
Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and
CNN sexed up the transcript.
Here's the CNN quote: "'I think it was Russia,  but I think we also get hacked
by other countries and other people. ' Trump said. Putin 'should not be doing it. He
won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it
than when other people have led it.'"
From the full transcript ,  shows what CNN deleted, and  comes 45 minutes later, in
response to a very qualified question. Trump doesn't do nuance well, but I think he was trying
to do it here.
Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous:
[T]he manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right.
Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald
The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state
is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin
palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban
smart set .
We can't afford to bolster [Trump's] accusations of establishment bias and overreach by
using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that
One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot"
story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or
the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.
Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate"
reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.
There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible
the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.
Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats
like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly
refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.
Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks
don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive.
They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.
In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation,
or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and
after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just
told us ľ they didn't have evidence to go on.
Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that
normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance
in the media. What does this mean?
The illusion of DNC hack, allegation it is "the Russians
There is not there there!
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:33 AM
Game Warden said in reply to ilsm...
The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and
viewership) and then setting the hook to try to land the
fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one
hot topic if there is any potential for a catch.
The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it
paid off for them. They landed the Hillary carp and found
that it rotted from the head anyway.
The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or
whatever, they land.
The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:57 AM
ilsm said in reply to Game Warden...
Oh well Clinton was never good with files.
Hillary lover foresaw this week's Sessions version of 'the
Russians are coming' two weeks ago.
They should keep the operational schedule for the coup
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 06:04 AM
libezkova said in reply to ilsm...
Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece.
I would say this can qualify as a classic anti-Russian
propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.
But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and
anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting
admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)
== quote ==
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy,
frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line
from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color
revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which
deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of
the uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya
Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the
country and gave the signal," Putin said.
"They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State
Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for
the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and
civil-society groups like the National Endowment for
Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the
election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised
instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian Úlite celebrated
Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift
toward an America First populism that would leave Russia
alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of
congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading
foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing
pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and
the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more
"ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has
the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and
accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the
shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian
television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of
the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that
the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.
== and of quote ==
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan
and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as
governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by
replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the
infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare
to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially
of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the
costs by surveying the major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent,
or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in
current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year
2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65
billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense
and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year,
2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested
for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and
estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those
are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 12:45 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is
asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001
and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost
of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:00 PM
Peter K. said in reply to anne...
"Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of
always but always understating defense spending by playing
all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on
military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to
talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary
person is made to think spending is tens of billions of
dollars less than it actually is."
Yes. I wouldn't trust
any info PGL provides without clear links from objective
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:05 PM
Pinkybum said in reply to anne...
Surely you would want to express this number at least as
inflation adjusted per-capita dollars (which GDP sort-of
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:55 PM
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
I like the OMB historical tables that reflects
outlay/ordering authority that is the checking account to
obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures
for delivery for years.
Tracking GDP metric is limited in
perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in the
accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books
nor what new stuff is added to the order books.
If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense
account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a
good source for GDP activity.
There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend
from FY 2009 through today.
Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting
some account information on backlog procurements means much
for any country.
"... Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought." ..."
"... *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties. ..."
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this
history. He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions,"
in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its
endorsement of the uprisings of the Arab Spring. Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for
some of our actors in the country and gave the signal," Putin said. "They heard this and, with
the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for the
accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society groups like the National
Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the election-monitoring
group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian Úlite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and
the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael
Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that
Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence
agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end
sanctions against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the
shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in
their coverage of the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have
funded Russian political parties.
"Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"
By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT
"In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally
advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National
Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877
CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy
representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed
"Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump
International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during
that meeting, Acosta said.
Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he
sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling
for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon
said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those
sort of details, as they've made clear."
Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political
party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday
in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump
adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.
Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials
during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican
This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".
This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.
There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance
which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks
like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism,
Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey
Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this
dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected.
He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to
hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.
In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "
This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political
sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation
providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.
But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize
their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking
ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.
BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful)
in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia
-- two major continental powers.
Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces
that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.
The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially
a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into
the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous
anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected (
So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you
understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary
did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).
What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will
come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to
cover it up.
You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand
complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog
Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging
from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some
people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and
political events; cm is one example).
Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage
of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your
urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.
As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this
dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of
Tonkin incident is another)
"... I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria. ..."
It seems that the last worthwhile president we had was JFK. He started out his presidency as a Cold
Warrior but at the end saw the futility of being involved in Vietnam and of the cold war in general.
At the time there was a very strong anti-communist pro-war sentiment in the US which resonated well
with the military industrial complex that Kennedy was up against when his views became more conciliatory
with Russia. This anti-Russian sentiment is trying to be re-whipped up in the US but isn't finding as
receptive an audience.
Kennedy essentially lost control of his presidency. Trump seems to be facing similar pressures but
I don't think he's so isolated in his battles. He has strong allies in both the military and industry
and there is a different public sentiment.
I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could
be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our
current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria.
Russia seems to be treating its Arab neighbors with more respect and it would be good if Trump could
get on that train. It would also be good to see Trump transition to a more climate friendly attitude
such as partnering with China on solar energy.
This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at
Yale University on February 25, 1997
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our
favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his
intellect and his humanity.
He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to
be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.
I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his
claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he
explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently
violated in history by the developed countries (imperial preference, tariffs,
state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the
IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by
being a moral titan
Bow to Voters, Opting
for Total War on Trump
By JONATHAN MARTIN
and ALEXANDER BURNS
FEB. 23, 2017
Reduced to their
weakest state in a
Party leaders will
gather in two cities
this weekend to plot
strategy and select a
new national chairman
with the daunting task
of rebuilding the
officials concede that
the blueprint has
already been chosen
for them - by an
incensed army of
liberals demanding no
less than total war
"Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia
By Greg Miller and Adam Entous...February 24, 2017...at 9:34 PM
"The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress
in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia, a politically charged
issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White
Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last
week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump's
campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.
The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration
to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories
on the alleged contacts with Russia.
The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose
that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not - participate in
White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."...
"... The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article. ..."
The trend is to Deep State co-opt democracy, and use it overthrow legit goverment and
replace it will neoliberal stooges what pray on the altor of democracy-killing Globalism that
makes of all governments just enforces for wishes of multinationals. Corporatism does not involves
any real democracy, not at all.
Bacevich is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed
here is something far more significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of
neoconservatism generally (and to be fair, where Brooks goes beyond
neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).
What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again,
primary - strategic threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but
its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology. That is the source of
our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy (to say
nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).
America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its
self-worship, its inability to view itself - its destructive acts as well as
its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex fabric of a truly vibrant
culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.
Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States'
persistent inability to view with any objectivity its endless, often
Somehow the current situation in
the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin", where Sam Neil
plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana,
that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop
believing in her and her powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen
surrounding Merlin turn their back one after another at Morgana and after the
last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes
The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other
respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its
flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have
included this in your article.
Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and
strife, that has brought nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with
Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other cultural centres in Iran, China,
India, Japan, is an overstretch
President Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of the
military-industrial complex made half a century ago ring as loud and clear today
The soft coup being mounted against the Trump government by America's 'deep state'
reached a new intensity this week as special interests battled for control of
The newly named national security advisor, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, was
ousted by Trump over his chats with Russia's ambassador and what he may or may not have
told Vice President Pence. The defenestration of Flynn appeared engineered by our
national intelligence agencies in collaboration with the mainstream media and certain
Flynn's crime? Talking to the wicked Russians before and after the election.
Big, big deal. That's what security advisors are supposed to do: keep an open back
channel to other major powers and allies. This is also the job of our intelligence
There is no good or bad in international affairs. The childish concept of 'good guys'
and 'bad guys' comes from the Bush era when simple-minded voters had to be convinced
that America was somehow in grave danger from a bunch of angry Mideast goat herds.
The only nations that could threaten America's very existence are nuclear
powers Russia, China, India, France, Britain and Israel (and maybe Pakistan) in that
Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US mainland. Any real war
with Russia would invite doom for both nations. Two near misses are more than enough.
Remember the 1962 Cuban missile confrontation and the terrifying 1983 Able Archer scare
ľ near thermonuclear war caused by Ronald Reagan's anti-Russian hysteria and Moscow's
Margolis' #1 rule of international relations: make nice and keep on good
terms with nations that have nuclear weapons pointed at you. Avoid squabbles over almost
all matters. Intelligence agencies play a key role in maintaining the balance of nuclear
terror and preventing misunderstandings that can cause war.
Gen. Flynn was a fanatical anti-Islamic wing nut. He was, to use Trumpese, a bigly
terrible choice. I'm glad he is gone. But Flynn's sin was being loopy, not talking on
the phone to the Russian ambassador. The White House and national intelligence should be
talking every day to Moscow, even 'hi Boris, what's new with you guys? 'Nothing much new
here either besides the terrible traffic.'
The current hue and cry in the US over
Flynn's supposed infraction is
entirely a fake political ambush to cripple the Trump administration.
caved in much too fast. The deep state is after his scalp: he has threatened to cut the
$80 billion per annum intelligence budget ľ which alone, boys and girls, is larger than
Russia's entire defense budget! He's talking about rooting waste out of the Pentagon's
almost trillion-dollar budget, spending less on NATO, and ending some of America's
imperial wars abroad.
What's to like about Trump if you're a member of the war party and
military-industrial-intelligence-Wall Street complex?
The complex wants
its golden girl Hilary Clinton in charge. She unleashed the current tsunami of
anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin which shows, sadly, that many
Americans have not grown beyond the days of Joe McCarthy.
As a long-time student of Cold War intelligence, my conclusion is that both sides
knew pretty much what the other was up to, though KGB and GRU were more professional and
skilled than western special services. It would be so much easier and cheaper just to
share information on a demand basis. But that would stop the Great Game.
It's sickening watching the arrant hypocrisy and windbaggery in Washington
over alleged Russian espionage and manipulation.
The US has been buying and
manipulating foreign governments since 1945. We even tapped German Chancellor Angela
Merkel's cell phone. This week Wikileaks issued an intercept on CIA spying and
manipulation of France's 2012 election.
We live in a giant glass house.
The Russians are not our pals. Nor are they the evil empire.
to normalize our thinking about Russia, grow up and stop using Moscow as a political
bogeyman to fight our own internal political battles.
Right now, I'm more worried about the far right crazies in the Trump White House than
I am about the Ruskis and Vlad the Bad.
"... Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits ľ in their rush to take down President Trump ľ are pushing a New McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians, risking a new witch hunt. ..."
"... As Democrats compete to become the new War Party ľ pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia ľ some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar. ..."
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign;
the Deep State Rises to the Surface
by Diana Johnstone
As if the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign hadn't
been horrendous enough, here comes another one: in France.
The system in France is very different, with multiple
candidates in two rounds, most of them highly articulate, who
often even discuss real issues. Free television time reduces
the influence of big money. The first round on April 23 will
select the two finalists for the May 7 runoff, allowing for
much greater choice than in the United States.
But monkey see, monkey do, and the mainstream political
class wants to mimic the ways of the Empire, even echoing the
theme that dominated the 2016 show across the Atlantic: the
evil Russians are messing with our wonderful democracy.
The aping of the U.S. system began with "primaries" held
by the two main governing parties which obviously aspire to
establish themselves as the equivalent of American Democrats
and Republicans in a two-party system. The right-wing party
of former president Nicolas Sarkozy has already renamed
itself Les RÚpublicains and the so-called Socialist Party
leaders are just waiting for the proper occasion to call
themselves Les DÚmocrates. But as things are going, neither
one of them may come out ahead this time.
As Democrats compete to become the new War Party ľ
pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed
Russia ľ some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did
in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
From Mike Madden (of St. Paul, Minnesota)
Dear Senator Klobuchar, I write with concern over
statements you have made recently regarding Russia.
These statements have been made both at home and abroad,
and they involve two issues; the alleged Russian hack of the
presidential election and Russia's actions in the aftermath
of the February 22, 2014 coup in Kiev.
U.S. intelligence services allege that President Vladimir
Putin ordered an influence campaign to denigrate Hillary
Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. The campaign is
purported to include the production of fake news,
cyber-trolling, and propaganda from Russian state-owned
media. It is also alleged that Russia hacked the email
accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton
campaign chair John Podesta, subsequently providing the
emails to WikiLeaks.
Despite calls from many quarters, the intelligence
services have not provided the public with any proof.
Instead, Americans are expected to blindly trust these
services with a long history of failure. Additionally, the
former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and
the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John
Brennan, have both been known to lie to the public and to
Congress, Mr. Clapper doing so under oath.
Meanwhile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange maintains the
emails did not come from Russia (or any other state actor)
and his organization has an unblemished record of revealing
accurate information in the public interest that would
otherwise remain hidden. While responsible journalists
continue to use the word 'alleged' to describe the
accusations, Republicans with an ax to grind against Russia,
and Democrats wishing to distract from their own failings in
the campaign, refer to them as fact. Indeed, on the Amy in
the News page of your own website, Jordain Carney of The Hill
refers to the Russian meddling as "alleged".
A congressional commission to investigate the alleged
Russian hacking is not necessary. Even if all the allegations
are true, they are altogether common occurrences, and they
certainly don't rise to the level of "an act of aggression",
"an existential threat to our way of life", or "an attack on
the American people" as various Democratic officials have
characterized them. Republican Senator John McCain went full
monty and called the alleged meddling "an act of war".
Joining War Hawks
It is of concern that you would join Senator McCain and
the equally belligerent Senator Lindsey Graham on a tour of
Russian provocation through the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia,
and Montenegro. The announcement of your trip (December 28,
2016) on the News Releases page of your website renewed the
unproven claim of "Russian interference in our recent
election". It also claimed that the countries you were
visiting were facing "Russian aggression" and that "Russia
illegally annexed Crimea".
It is unfortunate that these claims have become truisms by
sheer repetition rather than careful examination of the
facts. Russia has not invaded eastern Ukraine. There are no
regular units of the Russian military in the breakaway
provinces, nor has Russia launched any air strikes from its
territory. It has sent weapons and other provisions to the
Ukrainian forces seeking autonomy from Kiev, and there are
most certainly Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine.
However regrettable, it must be remembered that the unrest
was precipitated by the February 22, 2014 overthrow of the
democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych which,
speaking of meddling, was assisted by U.S. State Department,
other American government agencies, and one Senator John
McCain. The subsequent military and paramilitary operations
launched by the coup government against the People's
Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were described by President
Putin as "uncontrolled crime" spreading into the south and
east of the country. In American parlance, both the interim
coup government in Kiev and the current government of
President Petro Poroshenko have engaged in "killing their own
ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of
the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his
campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated
with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.
"Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone
call to Russia in years."
- cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017
Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of
both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions
had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.
The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance
"... Give Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question. ..."
"... After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent. No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian. ..."
"... US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin! There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending. ..."
"... Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives peddling F-35 job programs. ..."
"After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and
the amount of money that hasn't been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that
money is in property, bank -- Swiss bank accounts -- shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his
cronies," he added.
Not that Putin couldn't be worth $200 billion. I bet he is. But how did he get this wealth?
Oh yea - those Russian oil companies. That is where Russia's main source of wealth lies.
Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to
be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question
who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question.
After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former
Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent.
No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian.
US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin!
There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except
with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending.
Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives
peddling F-35 job programs.
"... Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces. ..."
"... As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith ..."
"... Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way. ..."
At risk of being flamed by everybody else with an opinion on this matter, I can see both sides
of the issue:
You are correct if Trump is not selling out to Russia.
You are also correct if (1) Trump *is* selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters were aware
that he is selling out to Russia, but voted for him with eyes wide open on that issue.
In either of those two cases the Intelligence Community leakers are trying to subvert the democratic
will of the people in elected Trump president.
You are wrong if: (1) Trump is selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters did not believe
it when they voted for him. In this case the Intelligence Community leakers, in my opinion, are
Just because the Intellligence Community is not laying the sources of its intelligence out
in the open on the table does not mean that the leakers are wrong. My suspicion is that they are
correct (see, e.g., Josh Marshall today. Google is your friend.) The deeper problem is that I
suspect Trump's voters simply don't care, even if the Intelligence Community is correct.
I did a mini max regret: More regret with Clinton sold out to neoliberal profiteering war mongers
who care only for perpetual war, the max regret I see is unneeded nuclear war over a few hundred
thousand Estonians who hate Russia since the Hanseatic league was suppressed by Ivan the Terrible.
Lesser regret with Trump sold out to Russia* that would only bring China I against both US
and Russia in about 50 years.
*Trump sold to Russia is Clintonista/Stalinist fantasia sold by the yellow press.
I disagree. It is not enough that Trump voters were aware of Trump selling out to Russia and didn't
care; if there had been conclusive proof of that before the election, other people might have
come out to vote against him.
Besides, some of his voters might not care and some might.
In any case, whether the leakers are patriots or traitors does not have to do with subverting
"the will of the people". At the most extreme, leaks could lead to, say, impeachment, which is
another way to express the will of the people. (Or actually, the will of the plutocrats and their
Republican and Democratic running dogs, but that's another discussion).
New Deal democrat and couple of other Hillary enthusiasts here used to sing quite a different
song as for Hillary bathroom email server ;-).
Russia bogeyman (or "ruse" as Trump aptly defined it) is now used to swipe under the carpet
the crisis of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of Democratic Party which is still dominated
by Clinton wing of soft neoliberals). Chickhawks like a couple of people here (for example, im1dc),
are always want to fight another war, but using some other ("less valuable") peoples bodies as
the target of enemy fire.
Democratic Party now is playing an old and very dirty trick called "Catch the thief", when
they are the thief.
Why we are not discussing the key issue: how the redistribution of wealth up during the last
two decades destabilized the country both economically and politically?
Also it is unclear whether a simple, non-painful way out exists, or this is just something
like a pre-collapse stage as happened with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR. The Damocles sword
of "peak/plato oil" hangs over neoliberal globalization. That's an undeniable and a very important
factor. Another ten (or twenty) years of the "secular stagnation", and then what? Can the current
globalized economy function with oil prices above $100 without severe downsizing.
The economic plunder of other countries like the plunder of xUSSR economic space (which helped
to save and return to growth the USA economics in 90th, providing half a billion new customers
and huge space for "dollarization") is no longer possible as there are no any new USSR that can
And "artificial disintegration" of the countries to open them to neoliberal globalization (aka
"controlled chaos") like practiced in Libya and Syria proved to be quite costly and have unforeseen
The forces that ensured Trump victory are forces that understood at least on intuitive level
that huge problems with neoliberalism need something different that kicking the can down the road,
and that Hillary might well means the subsequent economic collapse, or WWIII, or both.
Trump might not have a solution, but he was at least courageous enough to ask uncomfortable
Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable
questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from
the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change
we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces.
And when neoliberal presstitutes in MSM now blackmail Trump and try to stage "purple"
color revolution, this might well be a sign of desperation, not strength.
They have no solution for the country problem, they just want to kick the can down the road
and enjoy their privileges while the country burns.
As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather
than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
If you are peddling developed land then you want low interest rates for your customers so that
you can get the highest price for your developments. Still there might theoretically be a narrow
channel that your deal might slip through if commercial real estate were for some reason assigned
a lower risk premium than residential, but ordinarily the opposite is true.
A higher percentage of new businesses fail than new households and if more new households fail
then even more new businesses will fail right along with them.
The one possibility for Trump to have it this way would be that he crashes the US economy and
all new commercial development would be for Russian tourist to visit America while either deflation
and depression or Weimar scale inflation was suppressing prices for US goods in real ruble terms.
I expect that if you look at the pre-bellum South, there will be plenty of examples of stagnant
wages, low interest rates...
In Mexico, wages never rose regardless of monetary policy.
The point that I've been making for a while: despite a few progressive economists delusions
for rapid economic growth to tighten wages, it won't happen for the following reasons.
1) most employers will just say 'no,' probably encouraged centrally by the US Chamber of Commerce
and other industry associations. Collusion? You bet.
2) employers will just move jobs abroad, where there's plenty of slack. Flexible labor markets
has been one of the big goals of globalization, promoted by the usual suspects including 'librul'
economists like Krugman.
3) immigration, which will be temporarily constrained as Trump deports people, but will ultimately
be resumed as employers demand cheap, malleable labor.
Fed funds rates were consistently about double the rate of inflation.
The fact that the economy boomed and wages increased was due to the tech boom--an unrepeatable
anomaly. The Fed and Clinton administration unsuccessfully attempted to stifle it with high rates
and budget balancing.
To make sure that wages never rose again, Clinton signed China PNTR, granting China access
to WTO, ushering in the great sucking sound of jobs going to China. Krugman cheered.
"... "It's Over Folks" The Neocons & The "Deep State" Have Neutered The Trump Presidency ..."
"... For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. ..."
"... Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. ..."
"... Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. ..."
"... It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him 'an idiot '. ..."
"... The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't ľ they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight. ..."
"... Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control ľ this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality. ..."
"... I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine? ..."
"... Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns. ..."
Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise
man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not.
However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone
of Trump's national security policy . For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare
that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the
CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council.
Put differently, Flynn
tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them
back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover,
the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood
that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests.
That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC.
The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had
a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador.
And Trump accepted this resignation.
Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run
Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European
politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are
fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope.
But now Trump has betrayed us all.
Remember how Obama showed his true face when he
hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. ? Today, Trump has shown
us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn's resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook
up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an
act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump
will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence ľ hard Cold Warrior types,
ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don't care about reality.
Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him.
The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took
the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who
would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all
move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and
emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.
It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby.
Hassan Nasrallah was right when he
called him 'an
The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't ľ they will be polite, they will
smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some
might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight.
The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns
out that he is a doormat ľ very good for the EU.
Where does all this leave us ľ the millions of anonymous 'deplorables' who try as best we can
to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice?
I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had ľ hopes. No expectations, just
hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington
'swamp' will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of
solace in two undeniable facts:
Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency.
In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist
Empire. Just like Erdogan' purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump 'color
revolution' has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of
The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against
Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show they
true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization
of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and
that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people.
In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the
USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no
ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for
the US to avoid a collapse.
Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also
acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the
actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control ľ this is over.
Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality.
Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not "great again", but at least stronger,
a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from
the others. That's over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump
stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at
I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others
surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking
Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been
comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to
show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new
Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine?
Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance
that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would
focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual
edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian
statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns.
Today's Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the
official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try minimize it all. But the reality is that
barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it's over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people
in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power
by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen.
I see very dark clouds on the horizon.
* * *
UPDATE1 : Just to stress an important point: the disaster is not so much that Flynn is out but
what Trump's caving in to the Neocon tells us about Trump's character (or lack thereof). Ask yourself
ľ after what happened to Flynn, would you stick your neck out for Trump?
UPDATE2 : Just as predicted ľ the Neocons are celebrating and, of course, doubling-down:
"America's Biggest Creditors Dump Treasuries in Warning to Trump"
by Brian Chappatta...February 12, 2017...5:00 PM EST
> Japanese investors cull U.S. government debt by most since '13
> Currency-hedged returns were worst on record last quarter
"In the age of Trump, America's biggest foreign creditors are suddenly having second thoughts
about financing the U.S. government.
In Japan, the largest holder of Treasuries, investors culled their stakes in December by
the most in almost four years, the Ministry of Finance's most recent figures show. What's striking
is the selling has persisted at a time when going abroad has rarely been so attractive. And
it's not just the Japanese. Across the world, foreigners are pulling back from U.S. debt like
From Tokyo to Beijing and London, the consensus is clear: few overseas investors want to
step into the $13.9 trillion U.S. Treasury market right now. Whether it's the prospect of bigger
deficits and more inflation under President Donald Trump or higher interest rates from the
Federal Reserve, the world's safest debt market seems less of a sure thing -- particularly
after the upswing in yields since November. And then there is Trump's penchant for saber rattling,
which has made staying home that much easier.
"It may be more difficult than usual for Japanese to invest in Treasuries and the dollar
this year because of political uncertainty," said Kenta Inoue, chief strategist for overseas
bond investments at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities in Tokyo. "Treasury yields may
rise rapidly again in the near future, which will continue to discourage them from buying aggressively."
Nobody is saying that foreigners will abandon Treasuries altogether. After all, they still
hold $5.94 trillion, or roughly 43 percent of the U.S. government debt market. (Though that's
down from 56 percent in 2008.) A significant drawdown can harm major holders like Japan and
China as much as it does the U.S.
And, of course, homegrown demand has of late been able to absorb the pickup in overseas
"... Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page ! ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds ..."
"... Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was. ..."
"... The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. ..."
"... This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic. ..."
"... Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself. ..."
"... perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity. ..."
The bamboozlement of the public is nearly complete. The Deep State has persuaded 80 percent
of Americans that all news is propaganda, especially the news emanating from the Deep State's
own intel department. They're still shooting for 100 percent. The fakest of all "fake news" stories
turns out to be "Russia Hacks Election." It was reported conclusively Saturday on the front page
of The New York Times , a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State:
Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds
WASHINGTON - President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying
Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing
J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary
report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.
You can be sure that this is now the "official" narrative aimed at the history books, sealing
the illegitimacy of Trump's election. It was served up with no direct proof, only the repeated
"assertions" that it was so. In fact, it's just this repetition of assertions-without-proof that
defines propaganda. It can also be interpreted as a declaration of war against an incoming president.
The second civil war now takes shape: It begins inside the groaning overgrown apparatus of the
government itself. Perhaps after that it spreads to the WalMart parking lots that have become
America's new town square. (WalMart sells pitchforks and patio torches.)
Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself?
The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases.
Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer
Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation
The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top
intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's
power. Trump worked a nice piece of ju-jitsu afterward, pretending to accept the finding as briefly
and hollowly as possible and promising to "look into the matter" after January 20 th
- when he can tear a new asshole in the NSA. I hope he does. This hulking security apparatus
has become a menace to the Republic.
Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated
bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations.
When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin
repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors
were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we
can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that
anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself.
What we're actually seeing in the current ceremonial between the incoming Trump and the outgoing
Obama is the smoldering wreckage of the Democratic Party (which I'm still unhappily enrolled in),
and flames spreading into the Republican party - as idiots such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain
beat their war drums against Russia. The suave Mr. Obama is exiting the scene on a low wave of
hysteria and the oafish Trump rolls in on the cloudscape above, tweeting his tweets from on high,
and perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what
the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but
in the direction of clarity.
"... By Ra˙l Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords: "An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism. ..."
"... The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless. ..."
"... my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen. the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore the sinister intent behind the muslim banľit's based on propaganda and fearľit's provenance is neocon. ..."
"... In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact. ..."
"... Following Disturbed Voter's comment above ľ we can usefully distinguish 3 different levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect: ..."
"... Level 1 ľ the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say, ..."
"... Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and ..."
"... Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech. capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks of the public mass media. ..."
"... It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2 ..."
"... One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself: he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes. The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular. ..."
"... . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination ..."
By Ra˙l Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Two and a half weeks after the inauguration, and yes it's only been that long, the media still
don't seem to have learned a single thing. They help the Trump campaign on an almost hourly basis
by parroting whatever things, invariably judged as crazy, he says. One day it's that negative
polls are all fake news, the next it's some list of underreported terror events. All of it gets
an avalanche of attention provided by the very people who claim to be against Trump, but greatly
help his cause by doing so.
Not a single thing learned. If Trump tweets tomorrow that tomatoes are really fruits and he's
going to have someone draw up a law to make them so, or that Lego should be recognized as an official
building material in order to have the Danes, too, pay for the wall, it will be on the front page
of every paper and the opening item for every TV news show. The crazier he makes them, the more
serious they are taken. The echo chamber is so eager to incessantly repeat to itself and all its
inhabitants that he's a crazy dude, it's beyond embarrassing.
And it takes us ever further away, and rapidly too, from any serious discussion about serious
issues, the one very thing that the Trump empire desperately calls for. The press should simply
ignore the crazy stuff and focus on what's real, but they can't bring themselves to do so for
fear of losing ratings and ad revenues. All Trump needs to do, and that's not a joke, is to fart
or burp into their echo chamber and they'll all be happy and giddy and all excited and self-satisfied.
A spectacle to behold if ever there was one.
British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized
his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords:
"An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is
an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and
the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like
the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism.
The racism part ostensibly is a reaction to Trump's Muslim ban, which, nutty though it is,
is not a Muslim ban because most Muslims are not affected by it, and besides, 'Muslim' is not
a race. So maybe Bercow would care to explain the 'racism' bit. Has anyone seen the British press
pressuring him to do so? Or, alternatively, has anyone seen a thorough analysis of the British
role, though its military and its weapons manufacturers, in the premature deaths in the Middle
East and North Africa of many thousands of men, women and children belonging to the Muslim 'race'?
The 'sexism' accusation refers to Trump's utterances on for instance the Billy Bush tape(s),
and by all means let's get the Donald to comment on that. But this comes from a man who speaks
as an official representative of the Queen of a country where child sex abuse is a national sport,
from politics to churches to football, where literally thousands of children are trying to speak
up and testify, after having been silenced, ignored and ridiculed for years, about the unspeakable
experiences in their childhood. Surely someone who because of his job description gets to speak
in the name of the Queen can be expected to address the behavior of her own subjects before that
Yeah, that Trump guy is a real terrible person. And he should not be allowed to speak to a
chamber full of people directly responsible for the death of huge numbers of children in far away
sandboxes, for or the abuse of them at home. After all, we're all good Christians and the good
book teaches us about "the beam out of thine own eye". So we're good to go.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the UK, along
with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black hole from which
any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly and relentlessly
pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness' and political correctness,
they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their voters and viewers, while at the
same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the people of that they point to. For profit.
Child sex abuse has been a staple of British society for a long time, we're talking at least
decades. Only now is it starting, but only starting, to be recognized as the vile problem it is.
But still many Britons feel entirely justified in demonizing a man who once talked about touching
the genitals of grown women. If that did happen against their will, it's repulsive. But still,
there's that beam, guys. Read your bible.
The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering
a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and
Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith
in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be
cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless.
Whether you call the menu the people have been fed, fake or false or just plain nonsense, it
makes no difference. The British House of Commons Speaker may not be such a bad guy inside, he's
probably just another victim of the falsehoods, denials and deceit spread 24/7. The difference
between them and ordinary citizens is that Her Majesty's representatives in the political field
MUST know. They get paid good salaries to represent the Queen's subjects, and looking the other
way as children get assaulted and raped does not fit their job description.
That goes for representatives of the church (i.e. Jesus) just as much of course, and for the
execs at the BBC, but about as many of those people are behind bars as there are bankers. For
anyone at all at any of these institutions to now speak with great indignation about Trump's alleged
racism and sexism is the very core of all of their problems, the very reason why so many turn
their backs on them. It shows that the very core or our societies is rotten, and the rot is spreading.
We are facing a lot of problems, all of us, in many different ways, financially, politically,
morally. But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people
while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media
feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination.
The longer this braindead attitude prevails, the worse things will get, and the more Trumps
will surface as leaders of their respective countries. And the longer the attitude prevails, the
more anger we will spread in those parts of the world that do not belong to our 'chosen' societies.
And for that we will have only ourselves to blame. Not Trump.
Citizens and politicians are in a social compact, so it is said. Both sides may have defaulted
on the agreement, something the Enlightenment didn't anticipate. In the modern era of triangulation,
opposition parties, that used to keep each other relatively honest, no longer do that. In the
modern era of media consolidation, opposition newspapers, that used to keep each other relatively
honest, no longer do that. Be are being suffocated by de facto bi-partisanship, that is just
a shadow play of its former partisanship. The status quo has gone stale.
my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen.
the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against
special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't
have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump
the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would
calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts
that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore
the sinister intent behind the muslim banľit's based on propaganda and fearľit's provenance
In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to
the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump
did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation
is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah
off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact.
Agree with the second part of your comment, too. I wish Trump would behave differently.
The comment about the judiciary was incredibly wrong and also very stupid. His fervent fans
may well clap and cheer for that, but Trump is painting himself into some corners by behaving
that way. The Judiciary and lawyers ľ a powerful group in this nation, for better or worse
ľ simply aren't going to take that laying down. Although I'm sure the judiciary will (mostly)
strive for objective impartiality.
The stupid media would serve themselves, their Oligarch owners, and the nation better if
they ignored the bulk of Trump's dumb tweets and focus more closely on what he and his Admin
Following Disturbed Voter's comment above ľ we can usefully distinguish 3 different
levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect:
Level 1 ľ the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time
by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say,
Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit
from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and
Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech.
capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks
of the public mass media.
It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative
media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda
and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2001
ľ not because of any links to US created al Qaeda ľ and a big chunk of that plan is still being
carried out today, 4 Presidential terms later.
While we don't know much about what the intelligence agencies do, by design, we do know
a few things. That in the conditions of the early Cold War, and given the mandate against all
enemies foreign and domestic (the oath the military takes) that narrative control is a vital
weapon. We know that journalists, clergy and even rock stars have been actual agents, so the
number of fellow travelers must be considerable. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has
been necessary, so it was thought by some, to manufacture new enemies on a Vietnam scale. And
the exercise and paranoia against domestic enemies has returned to 1960s levels as well.
For the old men nostalgic for the 60s, from the neocon side, these last few decades have been
Materially, all we really need is to cover and protect our body from the elements and food.
Everything else is gravy.
Psychologically, we need a lot more than what North American society offers most of us today
but for some reasons we keep on lying to ourselves thinking that if we had a little more stuff
we'd be happier.
We all have to lie to ourselves thousands of times a day to keep our routines and lifestyles
and all these lies make society.
Hey Yves, the tomato question does seem to have something to it: "Nix v. Hedden (1893) was
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations,
the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit". From Wikipedia:
Note to Ilargi: re tomatoes, somebody got there before Trump :-)
I think a great number of people in the US and in Europe do not trust the MSM any more,
even though they may continue to pay attention as a spectator sport (people do enjoy yelling
at their TV sets). Activism is another ball game that is still being played, but in the US
it has become nearly futile because of the restrictions and police tactics used to squelch
them or shut them down. It can also be impossible to distinguish between genuine protesters,
paid participants, and shit-disturbers or agents-provocateurs, which dilutes the message (questionable
intent by those who want to promote or discredit the demonstration).
Having read the comments here and on other independent sites for a long time, I've noticed
the tremendous increase in articulate and aware commenters that can see through the tissues
of lies from the MSM and take even a lot of the "serious" stuff with a grain of salt, knowing
that some things don't change much and people tend to overreact based on shock-value news designed
to stir resentment and "us vs. them" divisiveness. This is encouraging because it shows people
are wising up, thinking more critically about who is really running the show (it is not
Trump by-and-large), and not allowing their views to be manipulated.
I think Ukraine was a turning point, as the lying of the media was just way too obvious.
That opened a lot of eyes. The reporting on Greece and Merkel/Schńuble's austerity terror was
equally bad, but not many people understand that.
Huh? Iraq? Did I miss something?
I heard about some thingy where we wasted trillions of dollars and killed millions of people.
But all of the people who thought THAT was a good idea are gone now, hiding their heads in
shame and hoping they don't get summoned to a war crimes tribunal. Right?
I believe it was the Gnadenhutten massacre. The 96 Moravian Lenape, brained with mallets,
by Washington's Virginia Militia were probably too busy clawing through their former frozen
fields, looking for corn kernels to feed their children, to pose much of a threat as terrorists?
Yes, what got to me was the Western instigated coup in Ukraine. I voted for Barrack Obama
twice but could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I rationalized that the Iraq Invasion was an
isolated crazy GOP debacle. Denial is powerful defense mechanism. If the media lies, America
is a not so innocent killer, and the Cold War 2.0 with Russia has reignited; we are screwed.
Austerity, scapegoating Russia and the flood of millions of refugees into Europe are proof
that this is the awful truth.
It's about ratings people. The president of NBC himself said it during the campaign when
someone asked why he was televising everything the Insane Clown was saying. You all need to
watch Network again. Nothing's changed. Which means they brought him up and now they will take
and the long trenchant comment by LondonBob including these paras:
"The Twitter-cheering for John Bercow, the transformation of him into a Love, Actually-style
hero of British middle-class probity against a gruff, migrant-banning Yank, could be the most
grotesque political spectacle of the year so far. Not because it's virtue-signalling, as claimed
by the handful of brave critics who've raised their heads above the online orgy of brown-nosing
to wonder if Bercow is really promoting himself rather than parliamentary decency. No, it's
worse than that. It's the lowest species of cant, hypocrisy of epic, eye-watering proportions,
an effort to erase Bercow's and Parliament's own bloody responsibility for the calamities in
the Middle East that Trump is now merely responding to, albeit very badly.
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily
banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so
much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself.
As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, 'John Bercow consistently voted for
the Iraq War'. On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn't been
made, even though it hadn't. On the same day he voted for the government to 'use all means
necessary' to ensure the destruction of Iraq's WMD.
"As everyone knows now, and as many of us knew back then, Iraq's WMD capacity had been vastly
exaggerated by the black propaganda of the New Labour government, by myth and misinformation
cynically whipped up to the end of providing Britain's leaders with the thrill of an overseas
moral crusade against evil. Bercow voted in favour of these lies. And he voted for the use
of 'all means necessary' to tame Saddam's regime. We know what this involved: Britain joined
the bombing campaign and courtesy of an ill-thought-through war by Western allies, Iraq was
ripped apart and condemned to more than a decade of bloodshed. And refugee crises. Bercow was
one of the authors of this calamity, one of the signatories to the Middle East's death warrant,
and now we're going to let him posture and preen against Trump's three-month ban on certain
Middle Eastern migrants? What is wrong with us?"
But kudos to kind-hearted Ilargi for willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to one
of these preening monsters!
Trump loves any kind of publicity. The media is playing right into his hand by printing
all of the garbage he generates.I know many Trump voters and supporters. They all complain
that the media is picking on Trump. None of them look seriously at what he says or does. There
universal reaction is give him a chance and quit picking on him.The media would be better off
focusing on his and congreses policy decisions and how that effect the average person. Turning
he's presidency into a big soap opera is actually helping Trump keep his supporters. I have
not heard a single Trump voter say they regret voting for Trump.
Good to see some focus on Britain's version of the Augean stables. In terms of the so called
Westminster paedophile ring ľ the last I heard on this it was that, Ooops .we appear to have
lost a substantial amount of vital evidence. I imagine that MI6 have on record most if not
all of the disgusting details, which I also imagine are useful assets that can be used to control
In my opinion, this is a good explanation from 2015, of the behaviour of the BBC & the Guardian,
from journalist Jonathon Cook.
So far Trump has only really accomplished two things: he shut down the TPP and he inspired
Lena Dunham to lose some weight. Everything thing else has been more or less noise.
I've always thought this first two years of Trump's reign will involve him in bringing to
heal the establishment GOP (GOPe) Obviously during the confirmation process, Trump has to be
on his best behavior. But I don't like the pattern of Trump issuing useless EO's, and then
the Democrats going ballistic, and then Trump supporters being satiated by all the Dem whining.
That's a recipe for two years of nothing.
On the Muslim ban, there are two parts to it. The current NeoCon / NeoLib tag-team play
is to kill a million Muslims in their nations and then to offer the survivors the weak reach
around of letting a million Muslims emigrate to the West. Trump seems to be offering a different
deal. The West stops killing Muslims in Muslim nations and in return Muslims stay in Muslim
nations and stop coming to the West. We have yet to see if Trump can hold off the temptation
to start slaughtering Muslims in their nations like the NeoCons do.
I get the feeling from Trump's over-the-top reaction to the courts staying his Muslim ban
that he actually doesn't want it reinstated. I read on a pro-Trump legal blog that the Justice
Department lawyers were super weak in their arguments before the 9th Circuit court, in what
should be a super easy case to argue. Activist judges halting the ban means when the inevitable
next terrorist attack comes, Trump can blame it on the judges and make some sort of move to
purge their power.
On Iran, Trump has zero leverage and so I do not see how this is going to end well. The
only thing we can hope for is this is a bit of Kabuki being regulated by Putin. In the end
a US-Russian alliance, as Trump is proposing, means a closer relationship between the US and
Iran. Israel will not be pleased.
My theory on Trump's relationship to Israel is that he is giving them enough rope for them
to hang themselves. In Europe particularly the Israeli brand is getting fatally interwoven
with the Trump brand. So far the only thing saving Israel is diaspora Jews being able to shame
their local populations away from the BDS movement. But the diaspora is 98% anti-Trump. There
is currently a huge increase of oxygen being given to the BDS movement, which means it should
soon spring back to life.
Can Trump be allies with Israel and Russia (and Iran)? The only way I can see this happening
is a deal where Iran gets to go nuclear and become fully integrated into the global community
in exchange for allowing Hezbollah to be wiped out by Israel.
Trump is at his anti-NeoLiberal best when he is in deep trouble. I was happy when that Access
Hollywood tape came out because I knew he would have to double down on Steve Bannon and Stephen
Miller and go full-on butch economic nationalist. And it won him the election. Hopefully the
seas will get very rough soon and we can all enjoy the spectacle of full combat between Team
Trump and the GOPe.
The entire Trump military/security team is wildly anti-Muslim, so the thought they are not
going to keep on killing Muslims all over the map is just plain silly.
Bannon is just plain dangerous. Here's a piece on his favorite books. Not surprisingly,
he hates Muslims. Also, he appears to imagine himself a brilliant strategist for the ages who
just happens to be the right man for 'The Fourth Turning', one of those ideas and books that
purports the existence of an historical pattern based on a cycle of generations, each generation
of every group of 4 having its own 'character', taken together claiming to explain a long cycle
of great crises and/or turning points of US history. He believes we are now in such a critical
period. It's one of those notions that has superficial appeal but quickly falls apart when
TPP? Globalization? I see no evidence whatever that Trump has any intention of rolling back
US-dominated corporate globalization, rather, he wants to create trade flows that are even
more wildly skewed in favour of US financial/corporate power internationally even while effectively
transferring wealth from the periphery to core of Empire to support some minor job creation
ľ of course in the meantime granting outlandish tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy at
I'm sorry, but Trump et al have played millions and millions of well-meaning Americans like
The best description of the "Trump Situation" ever written was penned by 'Steve from Virginia'
author of the blog Economic Undertow:
One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being
the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation
that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance
on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself:
he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does
not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out
of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This
is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes.
The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon
which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations
and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular.
I'm surprised no one seems to see a serious side to the reporting of Trump's antics. Is
it not important to keep hammering home that the man is unhinged and that this is something
pulling at the social frabric, something crying out to be dealt with? I seriously doubt that
we'll be able to address the "real issues" adequately until we find ways come to terms with
him not as a buffoon but as a deeply flawed human being.
Another false noteľ"Muslim is not a race." True, but being Jewish is not a racial characteristic
and yet it is obvious that antisemitism is very similar to racism in its irrationality and
hatred. Antisemites a hundred years ago would in some cases point to radicals who were Jewish
as their excuse, just as Islamophobes would point to Islamic extremism as theirs. Racists I
grew around would point to Idi Amin's Uganda ( yes, I am old) and other African countries with
horrible human rights records as proof that American blacks should be grateful to be here.
This "Islam is not a race" is mainly a tiresome distraction used by bigots and not a prelude
to a deeper discussion on the wide varieties of human bigotries. Bigots can use almost any
category they wish and concoct pseudo- rational propositions to buttress their hatred. We even
have lefties hating blue collar white males as a group for Trump support. We don't have to
join the people who use nitpicking phrases not to analyze, but to justify their hatreds. I
don't think the writer intends to do this, but he is using a standard Muslim blame cannon phrase.
After all this, I actually liked the rest of this piece, but that part was nails on a chalkboard
to me. I am glad the liberal mainstream is siding with Muslims against Trump. There are some
liberals ( Maher, Sam Harris etc..) who have been pushing a Muslim bashing agenda. And yes,
as usual the mainstream which is so solicitous of Muslim rights cared little when Obama bombed
Muslim countries. But I would rather that liberals be right if hypocritical then consistently
You forgot to mention Zionist racism directed toward Palestinians. An equally equivalent
contemporary application of the term
On the subject of Trump i believe his executive order is directed toward travelers from
seven countries that the previous Potus identified in an anti-terrorist executive order.
If I have it correctly, Neither Trump or BHO e orders are directed against muslims or any other
religion for thats matter.
I agree with you on Zionist racism towards Palestinians.
On the deep path on the definition of racism, it depends. Given the prevalence of Islamophobia
in the US, some of it on the left ( including the kneejerk supporters of Israel), I don't think
it is helpful to use the "Islam is not a race" phrase as some sort of rebuttal. Islamophobia
is a form of bigotryľ whether one wants to nitpick about exactly what form should depend on
I probably shouldn't have said anything, since the original poster clearly isn't a bigot,
but it set me off because in most cases this "Islam is not a race" phrase is used by Islamophibes
and they of course do not follow up by pointing out that it is a form of bigotry, like antisemitism.
If the poster here only means we should call it bigotry and not racism, I agree.
But that meme is used a lot and usually by Islamophobes who won't cop to being bigots either.
They aren't trying to have a deep conversation about different forms of bigotry. They are trying
to argue that it is rational to fear Muslims because Islam is, in their view, an inherently
evil ideology. But in practice Islamophobes are not rational or necessarily even consistent.
That's why I wrote my comment, pointing out that bigotry in any form is generally not some
carefully thought out logical train of thought, but some pseudo- rational set of propositions
often garbled together. This is why a Sikh can get beaten up by Islamophobes. It is also why
antisemites are often so confused about whether they hate Jews as a religion, as an alleged
race, or as some group of scary communist bankers. It's not like racism itself is usually based
on a clear understanding of biology.
So if we are going to push back on Islamophobia as racism, it should be so people see it
as like antisemitism, which is what it most closely resembles.
I have written enough today, so I am going to stop.
The reality is language evolves, often for the worse making clarity of message a casualty,
unless a tedious definition of terms is invoked which can easily end up being a form of deflection
from the original point.. ..
File under :Liberal/Conservative/Neoliberal/Progressive. I find all these Identity Labels can
be very loosely applied for reasons other than clarity.
In the case of the word Race, it is, some would correctly contend, archaic terminology while
simultaneously being convenient shorthand for "red meat" identity invectives.
Muslim isn't a race. If the ban had been about Arabs not being allowed in you'd have a point.
However, a person from Indonesia is allowed in and that country is almost entirely Muslim.
Plus, complaining about the US exercising boarder control is ridiculous. That is one the
jobs of a nation. No one bat an eye when Japan stated we're not allowing anyone in wrt to any
refugee problem. Yet when any Western nation does it, the sky falls and the charges of bigotry
People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here. Yemen, for instance, is bombed by the US and much more heavily by the Saudis
with our help and keeping refugees from Yemen out is an extreme form of ugly Americanism. If
we don't want the refugees, then we should stop causing or contributing to the chaos and death
in the countries which produce the refugees.
In other words, morality is a matter of preference and your number one moral value in this
context is keeping out refugees, people who suffer precisely because of our foreign policy.
Demographic balance is somewhere near the top of your own personal list of flavors. Anyway,
my notion of moral right involves the crazy idea that if you help destroy a country you have
moral obligations to the victims.
And by the way, Trump is likely to escalate our support for the Saudi war on Yemen.
LOL it certainly was a matter of preference for our recently departed Drone-Bomber-In-Chief,
and for all of the people who (thought/think) he was a really moral and upstanding kind of
guy. Just like our former Secretary of State, who threatened to cut off Sweden if they didn't
accept Monsanto poison.
"You're black!" said the pot to the kettle
Meaningless. The US frequently bombs innocent people or helps others like the Saudis or
the Israelis do so. You say it is wrong, as do I, but apparently there are no consequences
allowed in your moral universe which might inconvenience us. We really have no moral obligations
at allľ we can bomb people and if the survivors wish to come here to escape then we have the
right to keep them out according to you. All this boils down to is that we have the strongest
military. Your views regarding whether we should bomb someone are nothing more than your own
idiosyncratic preference and that is using your own standard. The people who control the military
want to use it to bomb other countries, so they do. Might makes Right.
I read it. So what? If we go ahead and bomb countries anyway, creating refugees, we have
no obligation to help them. It is like saying that it was wrong for some Wall Street guys to
steal people's money, but if they do, they have no obligation to give it back.
The US does bomb countries, so your flat earth analogy doesn't really work here. We aren't
discussing hypotheticals. There are real refugees from real policies and Trump is likely to
continue them or make them worse. We are directly responsible for the misery of vast numbers
of people and the numbers are likely to grow. Set aside the internet squabble we are having,
because you are so wrapped up in it you are losing touch with what we are arguing about.
Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough.
No they don't have that right. It falls under "that's your problem".
Now, as harsh as that is I think from a humanitarian view and basic decency another nation
should show some compassion and allow them succor. However, nations and the people of those
nations are under no obligation to do so.
Moral rights are meaningless. And yes, I do agree that another nation shouldn't create the
refugees to begin with. As I find war to be a tool that is to be used as last resort. What
has been occurring in the mid-East has been so far from a last resort that I can't even come
up with a decent metaphor or simile.
But that still doesn't change the fact that people do not have the right to enter another
nation if the nation decides to say "No".
So if we go ahead and bomb Yemen or help the Saudis bomb Yemen, it really doesn't matter
at all. We are responsible for war crimes, but we have zero obligation to help the victims.
You switch back and forth between talk of morality and the law of the strongest. You say
we shouldn't bomb other countries for no good reason, but that is as much a meaningless platitude
as you say moral rights are in general. Basically you find it distasteful that we bomb other
countries, but what really exercises you is the possibility that some refugees might come here.
That will not stand.
Anon is correct. We can be obligated to bomb other countries by treaty. For instance, we
bombed France to oust the Nazis as a result of treaty obligations. It is also correct to say
that the US has been flagrantly ignoring what were considered to be international norms (pretty
much no one notices here, but Russia has been making a stink on a regular basis in the UN).
Any day since 1/20, you could look at the front page of WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc., and see op-eds
about how Trump is very very non-professional, sullying the good name of the office of the
President. Denigrating the institution and the very very serious role it plays in American
society, nay, the world! And yet the same front page will also cover, in-detail, whatever halfbaked
Trump tweet or Spicer's performance-art-as-press-conference has been served up that day. They
recognize that it's become a farce, but like someone who can't stop poking the tooth that hurts,
they present the farce as being very very important news. The establishment press has become
too enamored of the pomp and circumstance, the ceremonial of the White House media operation
and their visible, although largely pointless, role in the whole thing. They're too scared
of giving that up, lest they lose prominence or, le horror, have to do real reporting. So the
Washington press corp prop up their end of the ceremony in the vain hopes of a return to the
way things were, in denial of how their function is quickly becoming redundant. If all they're
going to do is talk about Trump's latest tweet, we might as well just stop reading their sites
and just read his tweets ourselves. Social media can just give us the press releases directly,
we don't need the press to act as town criers, screeching out Trump's decree in the town squares.
"Emerson College study found that the American public trusts Trump more than the media.
The WaPo's attempt to turn readers away from great sites like NC with their "fake news"
story has backfired spectacularly. Thanks to NC and others furious initial pushback, including
well crafted letters from NC's atty and the recipients responses published on NC, the term
"fake news" has become a joke in the court of public opinion. It's become a subject for comedy
skits. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a pretty big thing. McCarthist witch hunts live
and die in the court of public opinion, imo. See: Joseph Welch, "Have you no sense of decency
And with that exchange the court of public opinion turned against McCarthy and the witch
hunt. Now where was I going with this ?
I was a census worker in 2010, and the forms didn't include Hispanic/Latino as a race; rather,
it was put as a separate identity category with sub-answers for specific country of ancestral
origin. However, 9 times out of 10 Hispanic responds would have me put "Hispanic" in the write-in
box for the "Other" race option (the other 10% would have me write-in their ancestral country).
The smarties with the degrees can say it's not a race, but if the people say that's their race,
who are we to say otherwise?
Ask Rachel Dolezal. Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren, an undocumented Native American (i.e.,
Indian). And yes, Pew Research would agree that folks who consider themselves to be Latino
consider Latino to be a race. But most are Native American.
But not anyone can be recognized as Native American in the USA unless they are on a tribal
register, which is odd, as the USG seems to subject Native American citizens to a higher level
of proof than Native Americans from south of the border.
" . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent
people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever
the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday
Yes, the media creates distortions in our perceptions. Yes, the orange one plays that terrain
like a pro. Yes the British MP is hypocritical. I am with you there.
"We are the problem." This kind of reasoning may be correct on a cosmic scale but it always
seems to run to one of two conclusions. 1) Become a Buddhist and try to improve yourself. 2)
Humans are too dumb to survive; wait until nature takes its course and humans kill themselves
off playing Russian Roulette.
I am not sure what your are recommending here. Do we let the orange sacred clown run this
imperialist project into the ground? (To be replaced by what?) Or in opposing Trump do we clarify
what we do want = i.e. a government that does not torture, a government that does not protect
gotcha game mortgage lenders, a government that does not arm the world, a government that does
not subsidize old suicidal fossil fuels, a government that is not run by a hysterical 3 AM
tweeting 16 year old Marie Antoinette, your issue here .
I don't know the answer here. The orange bull in the china shop is useful in so far as he
reveals certain truths = ex: waterboarding is torture, congressmen are for sale, America has
killed a lot of people, etc. If he stops the NeoCon project of invading other countries he
might even be a benefit to world peace. But he's also likely to get people killed with his
impulsive decisions and his ginning up the rubes.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the
UK, along with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black
hole from which any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly
and relentlessly pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness'
and political correctness, they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their
voters and viewers, while at the same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the
people of that they point to. For profit.
On a recent interview with Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly stated in regards to Vladimir Putin
"But he's a killer". Donald Trump responds with a truth rarely heard in the media today, "There
are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"
I may not be a fan of Donald Trumps, but, how can we put down that level of honesty? Imagine
if we actually had an honest nationwide discussion on what we are doing in the rest of the
"... US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes will not be sufficient to flood the market. ..."
"... Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices. ..."
"... The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without foreign participation (already producing oil). ..."
"... In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s. ..."
"... Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a big deal. ..."
"... Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook. ..."
"... From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's rather low on the probability meter. ..."
"... Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now? ..."
"... Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it. ..."
"... At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil." ..."
"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million
acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the
United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine, who heavily
tax the proceeds, and Ukraine was applying for admission into NATO at the time.
Putin subsequently invaded Ukraine in 2014, secured the routes to export the oil tax-free by
sea, and took control of the port where their Black Sea Naval Fleet is based, by taking the Crimean
peninsula from Ukraine by force. This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international
law in the free world.
After Obama sanctioned Russia for the invasion, Exxon Mobil could only pump oil from approximately
3 of those 60+ million acres. But now Rex Tillerson is soon to be our Secretary of State, and
as of today, there's information circulating that Donald Trump will likely unilaterally remove
all sanctions against Russia in the coming days or weeks.
The Russian government's oil company, Rosneft, will make half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars
from that much untapped oil, all pumped tax-free through Crimea, stolen from Ukraine, now owned
by Russia. Putin may have subverted our government just for this deal to go through."
Now, a flood of oil on the market from Russia would likely keep US oil prices down, thus hurting
US drillers right?
If one is conspiracy-minded, could that be part of the deal, too? Russia uses low oil prices
to take down US oil production, and then tries assert itself as one of the countries left standing.
In about 1780, Catherine the Great and the Ottoman Empire agreed that the Crimea was a part of
Russia. [Yes, there was conflict for years prior (as with any other piece of land in the world).]
In 1954, in honor of the 300th Anniversary of the Republic of Ukraine being a part of Russia,
Nikita Krushchev "gave" the governance of the Crimea to the Republic of Ukraine. It was not constitutional
under the Russian constitution. The UN said nothing about it, nor any other international law
body. Krushchev later trumped up an approval without even a quorum.
So the Republic of Ukraine seceded from Russia and took the Crimea with it. In the US, when
states (republics) seceded [having been states for much less than 100 years, let alone over 300
years] the rest of the states killed as many people as they could until they "agreed to rejoin
the union." People might not like it, but the vast majority of people living in the Crimea had
ties to mother Russia, and they voted to go back to being governed by Russia. So, Putin accepted.
And please, let's not get into an argument about the fairness of elections, unless your candidate
So, what would we do if Obama gave South Carolina to Florida, and then Florida seceded. I guess
that the rest of the states would just say "shucks, we lost South Carolina too." Especially if
South Carolina had the only warm water port in the US [the Crimea has the only warm water port
in Russia]. The rest of the ports are in the North Sea, etc. And, yes, that is a critical military
"This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international law in the free world." That
is a pathetic joke! Okay ľ let's let the US South secede again, since the Cival War broke every
international law in the free world and was exactly the same as Hitler's imperialism.
Just one clarification: the ports in Crimea are not the only warm water ports in Russia.
Russia has several other ports in the Black Sea and Azov Sea.
Other ports are in the Baltic Sea, Arctic seas and the Pacific; not in the North Sea
Perhaps I am wrong, but are those other ports large enough and deep enough for military use [which
I failed to state clearly]? I beleive that Russia still operated their huge military port in the
Crimea even after the Ukraine seceded and prior to Russia taking back the Crimea.
Rurik set up rule in Novgorod, giving more provincial towns to his brothers. There is some
ambiguity even in the Primary Chronicle about the specifics of the story, "hence their paradoxical
statement 'the people of Novgorod are of Varangian stock, for formerly they were Slovenes.'" However,
archaeological evidence such as "Frankish swords, a sword chape and a tortoiseshell brooch" in
the area suggest that there was, in fact, a Scandinavian population during the tenth century at
the latest. The "Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project" of FamilyTreeDNA commercial genetic genealogy
company reports that Y-DNA testing of the descendants of Rurikids suggests their non-Slavic origin.
Kiev was the Capital of Russia when Moscow was still a hunting camp
It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry,
but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread.
Exxon Mobil didn't lease any land in Russia. It is the operator of the Sakhalin-1 project in
Russia' Far East (very far from Ukraine); and oil produced from this project is exported by sea
Exxon's JV with Rosneft has also found an oil field in Kara Sea (Russian Arctic), but this
project was suspended due to the sanctions.
In the past Russia was exporting a small part of its oil by the "Druzhba" ("Friendship") pipeline
through Ukraine and was paying normal transporation fee, not taxes.
Now all Russian oil is exported via Russian oil terminals near Novorossiisk (Black Sea) and
Ust-Luga and Primorsk (on the Baltic Sea). New transporation routes include East-Siberia ľ Pacific
Ocean (ESPO) oil pipeline linking Russian oil fields in Siberia with the ports on Pacific Ocean
and with China's Daking; as well as oil terminals in the Arctic (Varandey).
If US sanctions on Russia are lifted, Rosneft and Exxon will be able to develop their joint
project in the Artcic, but oil found there certainly is not worth "half a trillion (500 Billion)
dollars', and cannot seriously change the global supply-demand balance.
clueless gave you a good answer on Crimea
BTW, 1) there is no oil terminal in Crimea;
2) Russian oil is taxed in Russia
"It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry,
but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread."
I never use Facebook as a source of information on the oil and gas industry. The topic never
comes up among my Facebook friends or my news sources on Facebook. When I want gas and oil info,
I use Google to look at legitimate news sources from industry observers.
I just wanted some people's thoughts on that. Your reaction actually tells me a lot about how
you think about it.
We've had quite a few discussions here about how politics, both domestic and international,
shapes oil production, so I was just inquiring about any insight. I'm rather surprised that you
are telling me not to even post a question on the subject. Touchy, maybe?
The relationship between Trump and Russia has triggered some questions, not just among Democrats,
but also the GOP. And some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil.
"some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil."
The only "tie in" is Exxon's frozen investments in the Pobeda (Victory) field in the Kara Sea.
But that's no secret; you can find information on this project on Exxon's and Rosneft's websites
and in international business media.
The Sakhalin-1 project is not covered by the sanctions and is being successfully developed.
"Will a flood of Russian oil affect US oil prices?"
US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of
Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two
areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes
will not be sufficient to flood the market.
Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding
the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices.
I think Exxon could re-enter the project if the sanctions are lifted. If sanctions are not lifted
for several years, Rosneft will likely develop this field independently, but it would take more
time as Rosneft lacks experience in offshore projects.
The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without
foreign participation (already producing oil).
In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively
slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates
more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s.
"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million
acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the
United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine"
Almost all pipelines through Ukraine are nat gas. Not oil. There is some minor oil flow. "All"
is just profoundly absurd.
Russia's oil output is going to Asia and northern Europe via Transneft lines to Poland and
Belarus. Not through Ukraine. Haven't looked for where those Exxon leases are, but I'm pretty
sure that's the Rosneft joint venture up around the Arctic.
Nowhere near Ukraine. This is all just completely wrong.
FedBook, er I mean Facebook, is a ghetto of sentimentality. I suggest deleting from it. I joined
Facebook once for a very short time and the only thing I learnt from it was that most of my friends
Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk
and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port
in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as
far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a
Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the
basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook.
From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely
as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's
rather low on the probability meter.
Again from what I've read (numerous sources) the Russian oil fields are being extracted just
about as heavily as they can be at this time, as are the Saudi fields, again relying on a number
of different sources.
Without getting too "tinfoil-hatty" I'd say most of the stories about the global oil markets
which promise big bursts of production from (heretofore undisclosed) big new oil fields are in
the category of "fake news." These stories serve to boost U.S. consumer confidence and U.S. automobile
and light truck sales, but contradict what people in the industry (such as Art Berman, Tadeusz
Patzek et al.) are saying about future supply.
"I've gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the "end game" is in
regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into extra innings with this whole Russia
vilification project. This is worse than someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government
does that, too, but they haven't done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now.
What, then, is the motive?
The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed Saudi Arabia as the
world's biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil fields are drying up. And the government
knows that, but they can't tell us this because it'll create a panic. One would think this would
motivate the United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States government
fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it, and realize it has the United
States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting
concessions in the global sphere of influence.
Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in
Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This
is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher
than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of
most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia
to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it.
At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot
be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there.
This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with
the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth,
they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum
and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system
is based on cheap oil."
Saudi has had water injection for much longer than ten years on pretty well all it's fields and
I don't think they are using nitrogen injection anywhere, there may be some small CO2 EOR projects
though. Their production has been maintained by developing three old, heavy oil fields that were
mostly dormant (Manifa, Khurais and Shaybah), by using a lot of in-fill drilling and intelligent
wells (where water breakthrough can be controlled) on maturing fields and by extensively redeveloping
offshore fields with new wellhead platforms and adding artificial lift. I don't think their fields
are anywhere near drying up; they may be hitting some limits in surface facilities ľ probably
to do with water injection or treatment of produced water which means they have to continually
choke back so as not to damage the reservoirs.
"... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
"... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
"... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
"... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
"... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
"... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
"... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
"... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
"... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
"... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
"... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
"... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
"... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
"... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
"... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
"... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
"... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes,
according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department
are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador
According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of
National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.
He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically
high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same
intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is
Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate
a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo
(a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).
That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the
KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal
matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet
Nomenklatura , roughly 3
million people (and even bigger mistake!).
But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who
by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the
trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.
By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone
conversations with Vladimir Putin.
Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon
This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has
gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President
and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.
In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the "
pussyhat revolution " as
explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists,
you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat
revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image
on the right shows.
This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that
the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began
by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.
This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media
is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".
Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama
is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not
once, but twice.
What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!
How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for
So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they
were well covered by the media:
Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody
is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.
One more example:
Remember the pretty face of
Nayirah , the
Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti
incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador
to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of
Neda , who